Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
windy-word-mcp

windy-word-mcp

by sneakyfree
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

get_my_plan

Check your signed-in Windy Word account details and license tier. Returns user identity, subscription plan (free, pro, lifetime, team), and device information.

Instructions

Return the signed-in user's identity and license tier — the answer to "what plan am I on", "what tier am I on", "am I a pro user", "what subscription do I have". Returns { userId, name, email, tier, devices, deviceLimit, createdAt }. Tier is one of {free, pro, lifetime, team}. If the user is not signed in, returns ok:false with a "Not signed in" error — surface that to the user and offer to walk them through sign-in.

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": "get_my_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.11.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description handles disclosure. It specifies behavior when not signed in (returns error) and lists returned fields. No side effects mentioned, but none expected.

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?

Concise, well-structured: starts with purpose, gives usage examples, return shape, and error handling. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Full coverage for a simple tool: explains return fields, error case, and usage hints. No output schema, but description compensates adequately.

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?

No parameters in schema; coverage is 100%. Description adds no param details, but none needed. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

Description clearly states it returns user identity and license tier, with specific examples (e.g., 'what plan am I on'). No sibling tool overlaps; this is unique.

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?

Explains when to use (user asks about plan/tier, subscription) and what to do if not signed in. Lacks explicit differentiation from siblings, but context makes it clear.

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