Skip to main content
Glama

get current user

get_current_user
Read-onlyIdempotent

get current user. Classification: read-only. Execution: synchronous. Task support: forbidden. The returned JSON is internal application state for LeanrIQ and ChatGPT orchestration. Use assistantSummary first when responding to the user. Never display raw JSON, data, or meta unless the user explicitly asks for raw JSON. Mention IDs only when useful for follow-up or debugging. Prefer concise, human language, highlight the most useful insight, and suggest the next best LeanrIQ action.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
seatIdNo
seatNameNo
sourceLocaleNo
targetMarketNo
contentLocaleNo
marketContextNo
targetMarketsNo
contentLocalesNo
defaultContentLocaleNo
marketLanguageProfileNo
resolvedContentLocaleNo
languageVariantGroupIdNo
requestedOutputLocalesNo
supportedContentLocalesNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
metaYes
errorNo
statusYes
assistantSummaryYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed12 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / contentLocale
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / contentLocales
      Added value: +{
      +  "items": {
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "maxItems": 20,
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / defaultContentLocale
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / languageVariantGroupId
      Added value: +{
      +  "maxLength": 160,
      +  "minLength": 1,
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / marketContext
      Added value: +{
      +  "properties": {
      +    "currency": {
      +      "anyOf": [
      +        {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        {
      +          "type": "null"
      +        }
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "targetMarket": {
      +      "anyOf": [
      +        {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        {
      +          "type": "null"
      +        }
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "targetMarkets": {
      +      "items": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "timeZone": {
      +      "anyOf": [
      +        {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        {
      +          "type": "null"
      +        }
      +      ]
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / marketLanguageProfile
      Added value: +{
      +  "additionalProperties": {},
      +  "propertyNames": {
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / requestedOutputLocales
      Added value: +{
      +  "items": {
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "maxItems": 20,
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / resolvedContentLocale
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / sourceLocale
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / supportedContentLocales
      Added value: +{
      +  "items": {
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "maxItems": 20,
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / targetMarket
      Added value: +{
      +  "maxLength": 160,
      +  "minLength": 1,
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / targetMarkets
      Added value: +{
      +  "items": {
      +    "maxLength": 160,
      +    "minLength": 1,
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "maxItems": 50,
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses that execution is synchronous and that task support is 'forbidden,' plus that the returned payload is internal state meant for orchestration rather than display. These are genuine behavioral facts not present in the annotation block. It stops short of describing pagination, auth, or error behavior, but the annotations already cover the safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is front-loaded with classification metadata, which is reasonable, but the majority of the text is response-presentation policy ('Never display raw JSON... suggest the next best LeanrIQ action') that reads like system-prompt boilerplate rather than tool documentation. That material does not help select or invoke the tool, so several sentences fail to earn their place here.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a 14-parameter tool with fully undocumented inputs, the description is silent on every parameter, which is the largest gap an agent faces when invoking it. Response-handling advice outweighs actual invocation guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 14 parameters, including nested objects, with 0% schema description coverage and no enums, yet the description says nothing about any of them (seatId, targetMarkets, marketContext, etc.). With zero schema documentation and zero description coverage, an agent has no way to know what any parameter means or which are relevant.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The purpose sentence, 'get current user,' simply restates the tool name and title verbatim, with no additional scope or distinction. Siblings like get_current_seat and leanriq_current_seat are never mentioned, so an agent cannot tell from the description why it would pick get_current_user over those. The only added detail ('internal application state for LeanrIQ and ChatGPT orchestration') describes the output, not the purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives extensive guidance on how to present the response ('Use assistantSummary first,' 'Prefer concise, human language'), but none on when to invoke this tool versus the many get_* siblings. There is no condition, prerequisite, or alternative named for tool selection. Output-formatting rules are not usage guidelines.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources