invoke_get_user_profileSession orientation: user, selected workspace, plan, brand/account summaries, and capabilities. Pass workspace_id when native OAuth has multiple workspaces.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | No | Optional client correlation id echoed back for tracing. | |
| workspace_id | No | Required when multiple workspaces exist. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by enumerating the returned aspects: user, selected workspace, plan, brand/account summaries, and capabilities, and by flagging the workspace_id requirement in multi-workspace OAuth setups.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact sentences, front-loading the core purpose and return coverage, then adding the relevant parameter condition. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is sufficient for a low-complexity read-only tool: it states the context, return-like content, and the workspace parameter caveat. It does not explain the response structure, but since there is no output schema and the annotations already imply read-only/idempotent behavior, the coverage is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema describes both parameters thoroughly (100% coverage), and the description mostly restates the workspace_id condition with only the addition of 'native OAuth'. The description does not meaningfully expand on request_id or add substantial param meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource (user profile) and the scope of what it returns: user, selected workspace, plan, brand/account summaries, and capabilities. This differentiates it from siblings like get_workspace_context and get_brand_profile, though it does state the intended purpose less directly as 'session orientation' rather than an explicit verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a specific usage condition for the workspace_id parameter (pass it when native OAuth has multiple workspaces), but does not explicitly say when this tool should be chosen over similar alternatives such as get_workspace_context or get_brand_profile. Usage guidance is mostly implied, not differentiated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource and lifecycle state, so an agent can usually pick correctly. The main ambiguity is among the profile/context tools and the approve/schedule/publish family, but the descriptions give enough state-specific detail to avoid serious misselection.
The set consistently uses an invoke_ prefix with snake_case and mostly follows a verb_noun pattern. It only deviates with names like media_preflight and x_live_read, which place the verb at the end or use noun phrases.
With 33 tools, the server is well beyond the typical well-scoped range. It covers many distinct areas, but the high number of status-specific post tools and separate context/profile/workspace tools makes the surface feel bloated rather than cohesive.
The core social publishing workflow is covered well: create, edit, approve, schedule, publish, cancel, retry, and campaign planning. However, there are notable gaps such as no delete/archive for drafts, campaigns, or assets, and limited tools for inbox, comment, or broader analytics beyond the single X read gateway.