whoamiWho am I? Returns the signed-in account: email, @handle, plan + limits, counts of sites/domains/drives, and connected DNS providers. Call this first to orient before managing sites or domains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the output (account details) and aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, confirming no destructive behavior. It adds valuable context about what the agent can expect, beyond the annotation's safety flag.
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 concise sentences: the first lists the return values, the second provides usage advice. No extraneous information; every sentence serves a purpose.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and why it should be used. It includes all relevant details without omission.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds substantial meaning by listing the specific fields returned (email, handle, plan) and their context, which the empty schema does not provide.
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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource (signed-in account) and the detailed fields returned (email, handle, plan, limits, counts, DNS providers). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools as an orientation tool, making its purpose unique.
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 explicitly advises to 'Call this first to orient before managing sites or domains,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. While it does not mention alternatives, this is appropriate as the tool's purpose is unique and introductory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.