whoamiWho the server thinks you are, which quotas you have left, and which jurisdictions currently have a corpus.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session | No | The `session` value the sign-in returned. Pass it on every call in this conversation, so the sign-in survives however this client handles connections; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / session / descriptionPrevious value: -"The `session` value connect returned, when this client keeps no connection session. Pass it on every Avokata call in this conversation; omit it when the client sends a key."New value: +"The `session` value the sign-in returned. Pass it on every call in this conversation, so the sign-in survives however this client handles connections; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by revealing what information is exposed: quotas remaining and jurisdictions with a corpus, which is beyond the schema and annotations.
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, compact sentence communicates the tool's purpose with no filler. The key identity concept is front-loaded, and the additional quota/jurisdiction details are efficiently appended.
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?
For a low-complexity, read-only introspection tool, the description, schema, and annotations together supply enough context for correct invocation. There is no output schema, but the description names the main return categories, which is sufficient in this case.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the session parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
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 what the tool returns: the authenticated identity, remaining quotas, and applicable jurisdictions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like connect, get_workflow, and search_law, which serve different purposes.
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 implies this is the account/identity inspection tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as connect or search_law. The context is understandable from the name and description, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
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.