Retrieves the current user's ClassQuill account details, including profile and business data, via a read-only API proxy.
Get Me
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org_id | Yes | ||
| scopes | No | ||
| org_name | No | ||
| org_slug | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond 'Get Me', such as what 'me' refers to, how the identity is determined, or what data is included.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than efficient writing. 'Get Me' repeats the tool name and provides no additional structured or contextual information that helps an agent understand the tool.
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?
Even for a simple zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is incomplete because it never defines what 'me' means in the API context. With dozens of sibling tools, this ambiguity could cause an agent to misuse or avoid the tool despite the annotations and output schema being present.
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, so there is nothing for the description to explain about arguments. The empty input schema is fully consistent with the tool's self-referential nature, and the baseline for a parameterless tool applies.
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 'Get Me' merely restates the tool name and does not state what resource or object is returned. It is a tautology that fails to clarify whether this returns the current authenticated user, current session context, or something else.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when get_me should be used instead of sibling tools such as get_student, get_tutor, lookup_user, or get_session, leaving the selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.