Identify the authenticated Oracle HCM user and configuration context for API requests. Returns auth hints only, with no secrets, while respecting HCM role-based access controls.
Return local auth/config identity hints (no secrets). HCM RBAC still applies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description adds real behavioral context: it promises no secrets are leaked and warns that HCM RBAC still applies, meaning output may be filtered or denied by authorization. It stops short of explaining what the response looks like or how RBAC denial surfaces, but for a zero-param identity probe this is solid.
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 the primary purpose front-loaded and the caveats in a compact second sentence. Every word earns its place; nothing is redundant or missing for a tool of this simplicity.
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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key safety/authorization caveats. The main gap is that it never clarifies what the returned identity hints concretely contain (e.g., username, tenant, config endpoint), leaving the agent to guess at the response shape.
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, which is the baseline-4 case; schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is nothing for the description to explain. No parameter documentation is needed or missing.
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 a clear resource ('local auth/config identity hints'), and the parenthetical '(no secrets)' sharpens the scope. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from very similar-sounding siblings like hcm_rbac_hint or hcm_test_connection, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this tool.
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 when-to-use guidance or alternative tools are mentioned. Given a long sibling list full of introspection-style tools (hcm_rbac_hint, hcm_test_connection, hcm_health, hcm_setup_status, hcm_probe_capabilities), the agent receives no help choosing among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.