Show the authenticated machine client and the org it can access. Call this first: it confirms the credential works and tells you which org slug to pass (or that you can omit org entirely). Returns { kind, clientId, orgs: [{ id, name, slug, role, createdAt }] }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description goes beyond those by disclosing what the tool returns (the structured client/org object) and its role in credential validation. Since there is no output schema, this return-format disclosure carries important behavioral context for the agent.
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 tightly packed sentences with no filler. The most important usage instruction ('Call this first') is front-loaded, and the return format is summarized compactly. Every sentence earns its place and contributes to efficient agent decision-making.
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, read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description is fully self-sufficient: it states the purpose, when to call it, what it confirms, and exactly what it returns. There is no meaningful missing context that would prevent an agent from invoking it correctly.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. Per the baseline for a 0-parameter tool, a 4 is appropriate; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details and instead focuses on the tool's output and usage.
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 ('Show') tied to a definite resource ('the authenticated machine client and the org it can access'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools because it identifies the caller's identity/access context, and it even documents the return shape, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 explicit instruction 'Call this first' is a clear when-to-use directive that positions the tool as the expected entry point. The description also explains why to call it: it confirms the credential works and tells you which org slug to pass or that `org` can be omitted, giving practical guidance an agent can act on.
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 tools target a distinct resource and action, and many descriptions explicitly call out their near neighbors (list_envs vs list_env_groups vs list_group_envs). The main ambiguity is the three-way env/group listing cluster and the partial overlap between list_orgs and whoami, but the descriptions largely mitigate misselection.
Snake_case verb_noun naming dominates (list_*, create_*, delete_*, revoke_*, rename_*), and the kms_ prefix is used consistently. A few outliers like audit, billing, whoami, signup, get_started, local_tool_for, and setup_local_crypto break the strict pattern, but they are still readable and no camelCase or chaotic mixing is present.
40 tools is far above the 25-tool threshold and creates a heavy surface for an agent to navigate. The broad domain of apps, groups, envs, secrets, members, tokens, KMS, and leases partially justifies the size, but several list/delete/revoke families could be consolidated.
The set covers control-plane lifecycle well for apps, groups, and invitations, and provides solid list/delete/revoke coverage for envs, branches, tokens, leases, and KMS. However, create operations for envs, branches, tokens, and leases, plus all secret value reads/writes, are deliberately delegated to the local crypto plane; local_tool_for and setup_local_crypto help bridge the gap, but the server is not standalone-complete.
