Return the currently authenticated Auth0 user and selected Encirca team identity. Requires Authorization: Bearer .
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | No | ||
| user | No | ||
| authenticated | No | ||
| teamMembership | No | ||
| isSignupFinished | No | ||
| isLoginAsAnotherUser | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by specifying the authentication requirement and the exact identity data returned. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond what annotations alone convey.
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 concise sentences that front-load the action ('Return...') and then state a critical requirement. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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?
Given the absence of parameters, comprehensive annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and authentication context. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what it does and when to call it.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per guidelines. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it correctly implies that no input is required. The schema coverage is 100% by default.
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 explicitly states 'Return the currently authenticated Auth0 user and selected Encirca team identity', using a specific verb and resource. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_account_profile or list_my_domains, which serve distinct 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 mentions the required Authorization header, which is a prerequisite, but does not provide explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context among sibling tools implies its purpose, but no direct comparisons or exclusions are given.
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 have distinct purposes (pricing, checkout, account info, domain management), though 'get_account_identity' and 'get_account_profile' overlap somewhat in returning account details. Descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent could confuse which one to use for a given account query.
Tool names consistently use verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_domain_price, list_my_domains, get_domain_details). Minor inconsistency: 'suggest_available_domains' uses adjective_noun instead of noun_noun, but overall the pattern is clear and predictable.
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a domain management server covering pricing, checkout, account info, domain listing, and invoicing. Each tool serves a clear function without bloat.
The set covers core domain lookup, pricing, checkout, and account management, but lacks operations like domain registration confirmation, renewal, or transfer management. Gaps exist for lifecycle operations beyond initial purchase, which an agent might need.
