Validate the current API token and retrieve user profile, credit balance, and agent key limits. Use this as a "Health Check" at the start of every session.
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": "whoami"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the three data domains returned and frames the call as credential validation, but says nothing about failure behavior on an invalid token, whether the call consumes credits, or any rate limiting — all relevant for a session-start health check.
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, zero filler, with the capability stated first and the usage instruction second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is buried.
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 parameterless, output-schema-less utility the description is nearly sufficient: it names the three returned data categories, which is what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. It is slightly thin on the shape of the response (e.g. what "agent key limits" actually contains) and on token-failure behavior.
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 meaning to add; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing in the description compensates for or elaborates on input, and none is needed.
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?
Uses a concrete verb ("Validate") plus an explicit list of the resources returned: user profile, credit balance, and agent key limits. An agent can tell what the call yields without opening a schema. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_credit_balance, which returns an overlapping piece of data.
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?
"Use this as a 'Health Check' at the start of every session" gives an explicit trigger condition, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of exclusions, e.g. it never says when to call get_credit_balance instead if only balance is needed.
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.