aivy-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

whoami

Check which account an API key belongs to and whether it grants read or control scope. If no key is set, it indicates that, enabling registration or sign-in from chat.

Instructions

Check the API key: who it belongs to and whether it may control (scope read or control). Without a key it says so: then register_account (new) or sign_in (existing account) sets one up from the chat.

Tool call template

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"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral traits: what is returned (identity plus scope level) and what happens when no key is configured. It does not mention rate limits or what a partially-scoped key would report, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the fallback routing second, so every clause earns its place. The mid-sentence line break splits the clause about missing keys awkwardly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter identity check with an output schema already documenting the response shape, the description covers purpose, scope semantics, and the no-key path. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no redundant parameter prose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first clause names a specific verb (check) and resource (the API key), and states exactly what is reported back: owner identity and permission scope (read vs control). That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from data-reading siblings such as get_sites or get_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description covers the failure case explicitly ('without a key it says so') and then routes the agent to the correct alternatives, register_account for a new account and sign_in for an existing one. This is a when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement with named alternatives, not an implied one.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.