Returns the signed-in user's profile and the Common Paper organization this connection acts on (organization_id and organization_name). Use it to identify the user and confirm which organization you are working in before reading or changing agreements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "data": {
- "attributes": {
- "created_at": "2021-09-01T21:23:24.838Z",
- "email": "admin@xample.com",
- "email_verified": true,
- "id": "USER_UUID_1",
- "name": "Ben Garvey",
- "role": "admin",
- "title": "CTO",
- "updated_at": "2022-04-14T16:51:07.975Z"
- },
- "id": "USER_UUID_1",
- "type": "user"
- }
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "data": {
+ "attributes": {
+ "created_at": "2021-09-01T21:23:24.838Z",
+ "email": "admin@xample.com",
+ "email_verified": true,
+ "id": "USER_UUID_1",
+ "name": "Ben Garvey",
+ "organization_id": "ORGANIZATION_UUID",
+ "organization_name": "RJMetrics",
+ "role": "admin",
+ "title": "CTO",
+ "updated_at": "2022-04-14T16:51:07.975Z"
+ },
+ "id": "USER_UUID_1",
+ "type": "user"
+ }
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: that the response is scoped to the connection's acting organization, which is not derivable from annotations alone.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the return content and followed by the usage rationale. Efficient, though it could be marginally tighter.
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?
Complete for a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema: it explains the identity and organization scope an agent needs to proceed with agreement operations.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and instead describes what is returned.
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 (returns) and resource (the signed-in user's profile and acting organization), naming the exact fields returned (organization_id, organization_name). This is distinguishable from siblings like get-user (which likely takes a user identifier) and get-organization.
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?
Gives clear context for when to call: to identify the user and confirm the working organization before reading or changing agreements. It does not explicitly name get-user as an alternative or state an exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.
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.