whoami
Confirma la identidad del agente: a qué negocio pertenece la API key, sus permisos (scopes), límites de emisión y uso del día. Úsalo para diagnosticar la conexión.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Confirma la identidad del agente: a qué negocio pertenece la API key, sus permisos (scopes), límites de emisión y uso del día. Úsalo para diagnosticar la conexión.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must cover behavior. It reveals that the tool returns business info, scopes, limits, and usage data, implying it is a read-only diagnostic. It does not mention any side effects, which is acceptable for a read-only tool.
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 two concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and ending with usage guidance. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return values (business, scopes, limits, usage). It provides complete context for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool.
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?
There are no parameters (0 params, baseline 4). The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.
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 states the tool's purpose: confirming agent identity, business, scopes, emission limits, and daily usage. It distinguishes from sibling tools like emitir_cfdi, preview_factura, and resolver_claves_sat by focusing on connection diagnostics.
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 explicitly says 'Úsalo para diagnosticar la conexión' (use it to diagnose the connection), which provides clear guidance on when to use. However, it does not specify when not to use or suggest alternative tools.
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 distinct purpose: preview_factura is a dry-run, emitir_cfdi actually timbres, resolver_claves_sat finds SAT keys, and whoami checks identity. No overlap in functionality.
Most tools follow a Spanish verb_noun pattern (emitir_cfdi, resolver_claves_sat), but preview_factura uses an English verb and whoami is a Unix command, introducing minor inconsistency.
With only 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for a focused invoicing server: preview, emit, key resolution, and authentication. Each tool earns its place without bloat.
The core workflow (preview and emit CFDI) is covered, but the server lacks operations for canceling CFDIs, listing past emissions, or managing clients/anticipos, which are part of a full invoicing lifecycle.