Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
YAZIO MCP

YAZIO MCP

by tomastaker
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Nutrition profile

get_user_profile
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a sanitized YAZIO profile containing only basic fields, omitting sensitive data such as email, birth date, and payment identifiers.

Instructions

Returns a minimal allowlist of YAZIO profile fields without email, birth date, tokens, or payment identifiers.

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_user_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by specifying that the response excludes sensitive fields (email, birth date, tokens, payment identifiers), which is behavioral information not conveyed by annotations.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns') and immediately conveys the scope and exclusions. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

For a no-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns (minimal profile fields) and what it omits (sensitive data), and the schema handles any further field-level detail.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. Baseline 4 applies because there is nothing to document beyond the schema, which is empty and thus fully covered.

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 states the tool returns a minimal allowlist of YAZIO profile fields, with specific exclusions (email, birth date, tokens, payment identifiers). This provides a specific verb, resource, and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_goals or get_diary.

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?

The description implies usage for fetching basic profile data but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. The 'minimal allowlist' hints at a subset, but without naming other profile-related tools, the guidance is only implicit.

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