whoamiReturns the signed-in Lightbringer user and organisation for this connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | ||
| organisation | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns the user and organisation, but does not describe edge-case behavior (e.g., if the connection is unauthenticated). Since annotations cover the main trait, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single, direct sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and result, making it easy to scan.
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?
The output schema exists to define the return format, and the description names the two key pieces of information (user and organisation). For a zero-parameter, read-only tool, nothing essential is missing.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the description adds no param info, but none is required.
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 states the verb ('Returns') and the resource ('the signed-in Lightbringer user and organisation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools. It precisely identifies what the tool provides without ambiguity.
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?
While no explicit when-to-use guidance is given, there are no sibling tools offering comparable functionality, so the implicit use case is obvious. A brief note on typical usage (e.g., 'call to verify identity before other operations') would elevate it, but the lack of alternatives makes the absence less critical.
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 invention lifecycle tools are clearly distinct, but there are overlapping pairs: add_comment and reply_to_comment both handle replies to threads, and fetch overlaps with get_invention for invention content. These overlaps require careful reading of descriptions to select the right tool.
Tool names generally follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern like list_inventions, create_invention, and update_invention. A few deviations such as fetch, search, and whoami break the pattern slightly, but the naming remains predictable overall.
At 18 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal scoped range and contains some functional overlap, making it feel heavier than necessary. Each tool has a plausible purpose, but the surface could be tightened by merging the overlapping comment and document-retrieval tools.
The tool set covers the core invention lifecycle well: create, get, list, update, validate, submit, and analyze, plus review and comment workflows. Minor gaps exist around comment management and lack of explicit review creation/deletion, but there are no major dead ends for common workflows.