current_userProfile of the WakaTime account that owns your OAuth token. Requires your own WakaTime personal OAuth token as _apiKey.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _apiKey | No | Your WakaTime personal OAuth access token (Bearer). Required for account data (current user, summaries, durations, heartbeats, goals, projects, commits); optional for public profiles and stats. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / _apiKeyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your WakaTime personal OAuth access token (Bearer). Required for account data (current user, summaries, durations, heartbeats, goals, projects, commits); optional for public profiles and stats.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful auth context by stating that the caller's personal OAuth token is required and that the profile belongs to the token owner.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope and followed by the key prerequisite. Every sentence carries useful information with no 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?
Given rich annotations, a full parameter description, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete for this simple read operation. It could more explicitly route callers away from the sibling user tool, but otherwise covers what is needed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the _apiKey parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that it must be the caller's own token, but adds little beyond the structured field.
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 identifies a specific resource: the profile of the WakaTime account tied to the caller's OAuth token. It implicitly distinguishes this from a generic user lookup by emphasizing 'owns your OAuth token,' though it does not explicitly name the sibling user tool.
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 gives a prerequisite ('Requires your own WakaTime personal OAuth token as _apiKey'), which implies when the tool is usable. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling user tool or any alternative.
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.