whoamiWho the API key belongs to and what it may do: the user name, the name of the key and its access ("read" or "write").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Name of the API key. | |
| scope | Yes | read or write. | |
| username | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "key": {
+ "description": "Name of the API key.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "scope": {
+ "description": "read or write.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "username": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "username",
+ "scope"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context by enumerating the response fields (user name, key name, access level), which is beyond the safety profile. It doesn't describe error cases (e.g., invalid key), so it's not a 5.
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, front-loaded sentence that enumerates the key return fields. It earns its place by clarifying the output, though the wording is slightly dense and could be smoother.
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?
An output schema exists, so return value explanation isn't strictly required, but the description helpfully summarizes it. For a simple introspection tool with full annotations and an output schema, this is nearly complete; only auth-error behavior is unaddressed.
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?
No parameters exist, so the baseline is 4 per the rules. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, adding appropriate context for a parameterless call.
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?
States exactly what the tool returns: the user name, key name, and access level. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from all siblings, which operate on presentations, slides, comments, and access grants.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, but for a zero-parameter introspection tool the implied usage (verify identity/permissions) is reasonably clear. It does not name alternatives, though none of the siblings overlap with this capability.
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.