cicd-aiops

current_user

Read-only

Identify the authenticated user for the current API token to verify access scope and troubleshoot permissions.

Instructions

[READ] The token's identity — who the API sees you as (scope probe).

Args: target: Server target name from config; omit for the default.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "current_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Jul 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and '[READ]' merely repeats that safety profile. The description does add a genuinely useful behavioral detail — that the result reflects the token's identity as seen by the API (a scope probe). It says nothing about error behavior for invalid/expired tokens, so against annotation coverage a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the '[READ]' tag and core purpose in one clause, followed by a compact Args block. No filler sentences, though the tag duplicates the annotation rather than adding new information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers identity semantics and the param's meaning. It could say a bit more about the returned identity format, but 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.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the single parameter — and it does, explaining that 'target' is a server target name from config and that omitting it uses the default. That meaning is not available from the bare schema, so it compensates well for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource and verb: returning the token's identity, i.e. 'who the API sees you as'. This is self-evidently distinct from the pipeline/runner/project listing siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming how it relates to any sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical '(scope probe)' implies the tool is used to verify the token's permissions/scope, which is useful implied usage. However, it never states when to reach for this versus an auth/health sibling, nor any exclusion conditions. Usage is implied but not spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.