whoamiReturn the signed-in user and their profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| color | Yes | ||
| Yes | |||
| lastName | No | ||
| photoUrl | No | ||
| firstName | No | ||
| providers | No | ||
| displayName | No | ||
| photoPreset | No | ||
| pendingEmail | No | ||
| emailVerified | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-open-world operation, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by specifying that the returned data is the profile of the signed-in user, which is useful behavioral context beyond the tool name.
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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Return') and immediately specifies the resource, making it maximally efficient for an agent to parse.
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 simple, zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema available, the description provides all necessary context. An agent can safely infer the tool's purpose and know that no arguments are required.
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, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the output rather than inputs.
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 ('Return') and identifies the exact resource: the signed-in user and their profile. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_public_profiles, which return other users' profiles rather than the current authenticated user.
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 makes clear that this tool is for retrieving the current signed-in user's identity, which is sufficient context for an agent to know when to use it. It does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like get_public_profiles, but the 'signed-in' qualifier implies the distinction.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource/action: board retrieval is split into JSON vs image with explicit cross-references, and drawing tools are separated from the generic update_board. Look-alikes like list_documents vs list_diagrams and publish_listing vs use_template are differentiated clearly.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern: create_project, list_documents, update_board, upsert_org_member. A few noun-only names like my_listings, project_file_counts and template_categories break the pattern, so naming is consistent but not uniform.
40 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold for a single server, even though the domains are clustered into org/project/document/board/template areas. The large surface will make tool selection and onboarding heavier for an agent than necessary.
Core lifecycle coverage for org/project/document/board/template is mostly present, and update_board serves as a flexible escape hatch. However, the board API reads rectangle/diamond/ellipse/free-text drawings and groups/links but only offers explicit create/erase for strokes and arrows; paid template purchase/access is also left unclear.