Retrieve the userId and parentOrgId of the authenticated API user accessing Apple Ads.
Return information about the calling API user (userId, parentOrgId).
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": "me_user"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies this as a read operation returning user info, but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or response format beyond the two listed fields.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys purpose and key output fields without any redundant words. It earns its place entirely.
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's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers the basics but is not fully complete. It does not specify the response structure (e.g., that it returns a JSON object) or whether more fields exist. Adequate for a minimal tool but leaves some gaps.
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?
There are no parameters, so the description's role is to explain what the tool returns. It explicitly lists userId and parentOrgId, adding meaningful context beyond the empty schema. According to guidelines, this warrants a baseline of 4.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('information about the calling API user'), and explicitly lists key fields (userId, parentOrgId). This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on ad groups, campaigns, 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?
The description implies usage: call this tool when you need the current user's ID and org ID. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention any alternatives, even though no direct alternatives exist among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.