Get current user
forge_get_current_userGet the authenticated Forge user. Forge v2: GET /user.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
forge_get_current_userGet the authenticated Forge user. Forge v2: GET /user.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's addition of 'Forge v2: GET /user' provides minimal extra context. No disclosure of auth or rate limits, but acceptable for a simple GET.
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 with no waste: first states purpose, second gives API route. Perfectly concise.
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 zero parameters and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose and API route, but lacks details about the return format.
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?
No parameters; baseline score of 4 applies per rules.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'authenticated Forge user', distinguishing from sibling tools which are all different actions (deploy, list, etc.).
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives, but the tool is simple with no parameters and a straightforward purpose; the HTTP endpoint hints at usage but lacks 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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. Even the five deployment-related tools are well-differentiated by their actions (deploy, get, log, status, list) and descriptions.
All tools follow a consistent 'forge_verb_noun' pattern with clear verbs (deploy, get, list, run) and nouns (site, user, deployment, etc.). No mixing of conventions.
17 tools cover the core operations for Laravel Forge (organizations, servers, sites, deployments, databases, etc.) without being excessive. Each tool earns its place.
The toolset is heavily read-only (list/get) with only two mutation tools (deploy_site, run_site_command). Missing CRUD for servers, sites, databases, scheduled jobs, etc. Significant gaps for full server management.