Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
solidtime-mcp

solidtime-mcp

by si-essence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

solidtime_me

Read-only

Retrieves the authenticated Solidtime user profile via GET /api/v1/users/me using your bearer token, without exposing the token.

Instructions

Get the authenticated Solidtime user. GET /api/v1/users/me. Authorization Bearer token. Never returns the token.

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": "solidtime_me"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the underlying endpoint, the Bearer-token auth requirement, and the security caveat that the token is never returned. It does not describe the shape of the returned user object, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the purpose, with no filler. The endpoint mapping is mildly redundant with the tool name but is useful for agents cross-referencing the API, so it still earns its place.

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 self-lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how it authenticates, and one important return-value caveat. The only shortfall is that it doesn't convey anything about the returned user fields, which matters somewhat given no output schema exists.

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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about 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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Get the authenticated Solidtime user", which is clearly distinct from siblings like solidtime_members_list (other users) or solidtime_user_update (mutation of the user). It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the resource scope ('authenticated') is unambiguous.

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 tool for identifying the current caller, e.g. before calling solidtime_user_update. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so routing is left to inference.

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