Returns the authenticated Paxaver user context: their first name, active school, students they are a guardian for, and available roles. ALWAYS call this first before any other tool to establish context. This is a read-only operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roles | No | ||
| students | No | ||
| firstName | No | ||
| schoolName | No | ||
| schoolSlug | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / lastNameRemoved value: -{
- "type": [
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description partly restates that with 'read-only operation.' It does add a small amount of non-annotation context by framing the result as scoped to the *authenticated* user, implying an auth prerequisite, but it says nothing about failure modes (e.g., when no session exists) or what the agent should do if context is missing.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and immediately followed by the mandatory-call directive. The trailing 'read-only operation' clause is the only wasted words, since annotations already carry that hint.
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 zero-parameter tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, nothing further is needed. The description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: the ordering constraint that this call must precede all others.
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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no param-level meaning to add. The field enumeration in the description is return-value information rather than parameter semantics, and the presence of an output schema makes that enumeration largely redundant.
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 names a specific resource (the authenticated user context) and enumerates exactly what comes back: first name, active school, guardian students, and roles. That level of detail makes it unmistakable against siblings like get_wallet_balance or get_orders.
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?
It gives an explicit, unambiguous invocation rule: always call this first before any other tool to establish context. For a zero-parameter bootstrap tool this is precisely the guidance an agent needs to sequence its calls, and no exclusion clause is required because there is no competing alternative.
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.