zhini_get_current_kefu获取当前调用者的客服 ID，即 kfid。用于在调用 zhini_list_active_sessions 前识别当前会话列表中哪些是自己正在接待的会话，或在用户明确说“我处理过、我接待过、我回复过、归属于我”等第一人称归属条件时构造 kfid 筛选。重要边界：用户只要求查询当天或某个时间范围内的对话、咨询过的客户时，默认范围是当前授权账号关联的所有渠道，不表示当前调用客服本人处理过，不应调用本工具或自动附加当前 kfid。本工具只输出 kfid，不输出手机号、姓名、团队、企业或负责渠道等身份信息。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool only outputs kfid and explicitly excludes identity information such as phone, name, team, enterprise, or responsible channel. It does not explicitly state side effects or read-only behavior, but as a parameterless getter with a detailed output constraint, it carries the transparency burden adequately. A short 'read-only' note would make it fully transparent.
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 concise and well-structured: a clear main purpose, followed by two use-case examples, and an important boundary note. Each sentence serves a purpose without redundancy, and the structure guides the reader from general function to specific usage constraints.
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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the output (kfid only) and provides essential context about when to use and when to avoid the tool. It also clarifies the default account/channel scope for time-range queries, leaving no critical gaps for correct invocation.
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 no parameters, and the schema accordingly defines an empty properties object. There is no parameter information to add; the description does not contain any misleading or absent parameter semantics. A perfect score is appropriate given there is nothing to explain.
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 retrieves the current caller's kefu ID and explains two specific use cases: identifying sessions the caller is handling before calling zhini_list_active_sessions, and constructing kfid filters when the user expresses first-person attribution. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools by implying its role in session filtering.
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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance (before listing active sessions or when user mentions first-person attribution) and a critical when-not-to-use rule (do not call or auto-append kfid for time-range-only queries). This is a clear, actionable usage policy.
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.