Skip to main content
Glama

~Alter Identity

by com.truealter

Read Public Presence

alter_presence_read
Read-only

Read whether a ~handle is publicly 'open', the shop-front sign. Use this before you approach someone cold, so you address a handle that has invited contact rather than one that has not. Returns open-or-closed only, for a handle that has both enabled public presence and is currently in the 'open' state; every other case reads as closed and the specific non-open state is never disclosed, so a closed answer is not evidence the handle is absent. Setting your own sign is alter_presence_set, and alter_presence_public_enable or alter_presence_public_disable decide whether it is published at all; all three are credentialed and so are not on the anonymous listing. Per-caller rate limited. Free L0, no authentication required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
handleYesTarget ~handle to read, e.g. ~blake.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses key behavioral nuance: a closed result is not evidence of absence, the specific non-open state is never disclosed, the operation is per-caller rate limited, and no authentication is required. This gives the agent meaningful expectations beyond the structured 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?

Although dense, every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage context, return semantics, sibling differentiation, and operational constraints. The primary purpose is front-loaded and the additional clauses are all directly useful for correct invocation.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns, what edge cases mean, how it differs from siblings, rate limiting, and authentication. Nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already documents the single parameter handle with a clear example and maxLength, so schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the ~handle concept but adds no new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read whether a ~handle is publicly open, the shop-front sign.' It clearly names the sibling operations it is not (alter_presence_set, alter_presence_public_enable/disable), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before you approach someone cold, so you address a handle that has invited contact rather than one that has not.' It also names the alternatives and their different roles, and notes that they are credentialed, so an agent can decide when this tool is appropriate versus not.

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

All ~Alter Identity toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools overlap in purpose: hello_agent and alter_login_status both report authentication state at session start, alter_verify and alter_resolve_handle both confirm handle existence, and golden_thread_status and thread_census both describe the same program. The descriptions are strong enough to disambiguate most cases, but the boundaries are not always obvious.

Naming Consistency3/5

Everything uses snake_case and most names are readable, but conventions are mixed: some tools use the alter_ prefix, others use describe_, get_, register_, or standalone nouns like thread_census and golden_thread_status. recommend_tool is also explicitly misleading, since it returns connection wiring rather than a tool recommendation.

Tool Count4/5

At 16 tools, the set is just above the typical well-scoped range, but each tool serves a distinct free-tier need: onboarding, registration, handle lookup, vocabulary reference, network stats, and program status. The count feels reasonable rather than bloated.

Completeness3/5

The set covers the anonymous/free surface well: registration, handle resolution, credential introspection, vocabularies, and program status are all present. However, multiple tools referenced in descriptions are absent, including alter_presence_set, verify_identity, query_field, and create_requirement, so core identity workflows around updating presence and performing paid field queries hit dead ends.

Resources