getApiIdentityReturns the workspace account ID, the API key or Claude and ChatGPT connection in use, and its granted scopes.
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": "getApiIdentity"
}
}| 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?
The annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it reveals the account identity, active credential or Claude/ChatGPT connection, and granted scopes, though it does not discuss sensitivity of the returned API key information.
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 definition is a single efficient sentence with no wasted wording, and it front-loads the returned information.
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 simple zero-parameter read-only identity tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete because it enumerates the key returned values. A minor gap is that it does not clarify how an API key value or connection type is represented.
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 are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score for a zero-parameter tool is 4.
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 uses a specific verb ("Returns") and clearly identifies the resource: the workspace account ID, the active API key or Claude/ChatGPT connection, and its granted scopes. This is sufficiently distinct from sibling tools such as getCreditBalance or getOutreachProfile.
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?
Usage is implied: checking which identity, credential, or connection the API is operating under and which scopes it has. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives.
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.