WhoAmI API JSON lookup for account limits, credit costs, privacy flags, max batch sizes, and endpoint inventory. Uses no API credits. Call this first to make account-aware decisions.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "whoami-api"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the single most decision-relevant cost trait, 'Uses no API credits', which the annotations do not cover. It also flags this as a bootstrap call, which is genuine behavioral context beyond readOnly/destructive/openWorld hints. It is silent on auth requirements and on the fact that the annotation marks it not read-only, which is a mild unexplained tension for a 'lookup'.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the return inventory before the call-to-action. The opening 'WhoAmI API JSON lookup' mildly restates the tool name, but no sentence is 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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description carries most of the burden and does so by enumerating the returned data categories and the zero-credit cost. What is left out — response shape/details and auth expectations — is minor for a zero-argument bootstrap call.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline applies and there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Nothing is missing or misdescribed on this dimension.
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 names a specific verb-and-resource pair ('WhoAmI API JSON lookup') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: account limits, credit costs, privacy flags, max batch sizes, and endpoint inventory. That inventory distinguishes it from cost/usage siblings like usage-api or list-api without needing to name them.
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?
'Call this first to make account-aware decisions' gives explicit sequencing guidance that no sibling tool provides. It does not name an alternative or state exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
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.