bandlab_whoamiVerify your BandLab session is active and retrieve your profile details, including user ID, username, and counters, to enable subsequent operations.
Returns the authenticated BandLab profile (id, username, counters). Call this first to confirm the session works and to get the user id other tools need.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds useful behavior beyond it: the tool verifies the session and returns authenticated profile data. It does not describe error behavior for an invalid session, but 'confirm the session works' strongly implies the outcome.
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 wasted words. The core return value is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is placed right after it. Every sentence earns its place.
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 session-check tool with a readOnly annotation, the description is complete: it names the resource, the returned fields, the recommended call order, and the purpose. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently covers the expected return values.
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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. Baseline 4 is appropriate because no parameter semantics are needed.
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 ('Returns') with a clear resource ('authenticated BandLab profile') and names the returned fields (id, username, counters). It also tells the agent why this tool matters (getting the user id other tools need), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like bandlab_list_songs or bandlab_capabilities.
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 says to call this tool first to confirm the session works and to obtain the user id needed by other tools. This gives clear contextual guidance, though it does not spell out when not to use it or name any alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.