Show the user's own identity inside AgentX — the name their agents see when you message them on their behalf.
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": "agentx_identity"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine semantic context beyond that — that the returned identity is specifically the name other agents see when acting on the user's behalf, not a generic account record.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence led by the verb, with one clarifying clause that earns its place. Slightly indirect at the tail ('when you message them on their behalf'), but nothing is padded.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only source for what comes back, and it says only 'the name their agents see' — not whether a display name, handle, or ID is returned. For a trivial zero-param read this is close to adequate, but the unresolved overlap with 'whoami' leaves the agent without a routing rule.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies a no-argument call and adds no misleading parameter language.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Show the user's own identity inside AgentX', with a clarifying gloss that it's the name agents see. However, the sibling 'whoami' appears to answer the same question, and the description never distinguishes itself from it, leaving ambiguity an agent must resolve on its own.
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?
No when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no exclusion. Most importantly, the near-duplicate sibling 'whoami' is never mentioned, so an agent has no textual basis for choosing between the two identity tools.
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.