Who this API key belongs to: the client (customer), the user, their report-section scopes ("*" = full access, else a list from: seo, aeo, geo, smm, outreach, paid_media, plan), whether the key can mark outreach leads, and any own-leads-only restriction.
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the response contents: client, user, report-section scopes with possible values, outreach-lead marking ability, and own-leads-only restriction. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the phrasing 'who this API key belongs to' strongly implies introspection with no side effects.
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?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core question ('Who this API key belongs to') and then efficiently enumerates all the relevant access details. Every clause adds meaningful information about the tool's output.
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 that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns, and it does so thoroughly. It covers the key owner, user, scope restrictions with valid values, outreach-lead marking permission, and own-leads-only restrictions. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool and interpret its result.
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 there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The schema coverage is effectively 100% by being empty, and the description focuses entirely on the returned information rather than needing to explain inputs. This matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 tool's purpose: returning information about the current API key's owner, user, scopes, and special permissions. Although it lacks an explicit verb, the tool name 'get_me' combined with the description makes the resource and action unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling lead/report/readiness tools.
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 provides clear context: use this tool when you need to know what API key is being used and what access it has. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the zero-parameter introspection nature and the detailed scope list make the intended usage obvious relative to the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.