whoamiThe connected account: tier, persona, corpus freshness, and every limit — what is left in the current window, and the caps that do not renew. Call it when a user asks about limits, when you are unsure whether you are authenticated, or to confirm a setting took.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains that limits include both a current window and non-renewing caps, and implies read-only inspection via 'confirm a setting took.' However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is side-effect-free, how it behaves when no account is connected, or whether it can be called before authentication.
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 compact and front-loaded: it leads with the tool's purpose, then lists the concrete values returned, then gives explicit invocation triggers. Every sentence contributes useful guidance without repetition or filler.
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-argument inspection tool with no output schema, the description conveys the key return categories (tier, persona, corpus freshness, limit windows) and the situations where it is appropriate. An agent can decide to call it correctly and understand the general shape of the response.
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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The description goes beyond schema constraints by detailing what the returned account context includes, earning the baseline-plus credit.
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 as an introspection call that returns the connected account's tier, persona, corpus freshness, and current limits. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like connect_start, connect_verify, get_workflow, and search_opportunities, which all serve different purposes.
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 explicitly lists when to call the tool: when a user asks about limits, when unsure about authentication status, or to confirm a setting took. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the provided triggers are clear and actionable.
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.
Each tool has a clearly bounded job: auth start/verify, search vs. full record, workflow list vs. workflow detail, and account status. An agent is unlikely to confuse any two tools because resource and action boundaries are distinct.
Six tools follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern: connect_start, connect_verify, get_opportunity, get_workflow, list_workflows, search_opportunities. The exception is 'whoami', a single recognizable token that breaks the verb_noun pattern but is still consistent in style.
Seven tools is well-scoped for an auth-gated EU tender and grant search service. There is no redundancy, and each tool serves a necessary part of the workflow from authentication through search, retrieval, playbooks, and account limits.
The documented workflow is search_opportunities → get_opportunity → read_document, but read_document is absent from the exposed toolset despite being described as the required follow-up for eligibility text. This creates a dead end that will cause agent failures in the core use case. The rest of the surface—search, detail retrieval, workflow guidance, and account introspection—is otherwise reasonably complete.