Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Clio Manage MCP

Clio Manage MCP

by patrickking67
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Identify the active Clio user

clio_who_am_i
Read-onlyIdempotent

Confirms API authentication by retrieving the current user's profile, showing id, name, email, and roles.

Instructions

Calls GET /users/who_am_i.json to confirm credentials work and return the current user record.

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": "clio_who_am_i"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNoOptional comma-separated list of fields to return. Defaults to a sensible subset: id,name,email,enabled,roles.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description primarily confirms it's a GET call. It adds value by specifying the exact endpoint and the return of user data, with no contradictions.

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 sentence that front-loads the API call and purpose, with no extraneous words. Excellent conciseness.

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 simple authentication check with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. Minor omission: no mention of error responses, but not critical for this tool's simplicity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The only parameter (fields) is fully documented in the schema with defaults. The description adds no new information about parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: calling the GET /users/who_am_i endpoint to confirm credentials and return the current user. It distinguishes itself from siblings like clio_get_user and clio_list_users by focusing on the authenticated user.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies use after authentication to verify credentials, providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparisons with sibling tools, though the intended use case is obvious.

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