Identify the linux.do account and trust level associated with the current cookie.
查看当前 cookie 对应的 linux.do 登录用户与信任等级。
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": "whoami"
}
}| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It uses the clear read-only verb '查看' (view), indicating no side effects. It also specifies the source of identity (current cookie) and the data returned (user and trust level). This is adequately transparent for a simple read operation, though it does not describe failure modes like unauthenticated sessions.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or extraneous content.
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 conveys the essential purpose and data source. It could specify what happens when no cookie is present or the shape of the returned trust level, but these are minor omissions for such a simple tool.
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 the schema is complete (100% coverage). The description adds contextual meaning by clarifying that the tool operates on the current cookie rather than taking any explicit input. This satisfies the baseline for a no-parameter tool.
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 states a specific verb ('查看' = view) and a distinct resource: the linux.do logged-in user and trust level associated with the current cookie. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like user_info, which would target arbitrary users rather than the authenticated session.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or hints about situations where a sibling tool would be more appropriate. Usage is only implied by the tool's self-evident purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.