whoamiAccount id, display name, role, and today’s remaining suggestion quota. [sign-in required]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| role | Yes | ||
| status | No | ||
| dailyCap | No | ||
| displayName | No | ||
| remainingSuggestions | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "dailyCap": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "displayName": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "remainingSuggestions": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "role": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "role"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the sign-in requirement and the fact that the quota returned is 'today's remaining' — a time-scoped, non-obvious detail.
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?
A single sentence plus a bracketed prerequisite — zero waste, front-loaded with the returned fields and ending with the one gating condition. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return structure; nonetheless it summarizes the payload, and it supplies the auth prerequisite. For a zero-parameter read tool with full annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it correctly does not invent any.
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 names the resource precisely (the current account) and enumerates exactly what it returns: account id, display name, role, and remaining suggestion quota. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like my_suggestions or site_summary, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'show'.
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 bracketed '[sign-in required]' establishes a prerequisite for calling the tool, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as confirm_sign_in or request_sign_in, leaving the selection logic to inference.
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.