Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@ola/buzz-mcp

@ola/buzz-mcp

Official
by ola-krutrim
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

buzz_whoami

Read-onlyIdempotent

Displays the current CLI session's Buzz identity, including friendly name, npub, and pubkey, so agents can verify which account the session is using.

Instructions

Show this CLI session's Buzz identity (friendly name + npub + pubkey).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "buzz_whoami"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.36
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observedv0.2.6

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond the structured data by disclosing the shape of the returned identity (friendly name, npub, pubkey), which matters because no output schema exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence that front-loads the verb and scope, with the return fields in parentheses. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, zero-annotation-burden identity tool the description covers what it returns, which is the only real open question given the absence of an output schema. The only minor gap is not saying what happens if the session is unauthenticated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% with an empty property set, consistent with the description claiming no inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description pairs the verb "Show" with a specific resource, "this CLI session's Buzz identity," and enumerates the returned fields (friendly name + npub + pubkey). The scoping phrase "this CLI session's" implicitly separates it from sibling tools like buzz_profile or buzz_setname, though it never names an alternative outright.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the local-session identity lookup rather than a remote profile fetch, but the description never states when to prefer it over buzz_profile or buzz_setname. No prerequisites (e.g. login required) or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools