current_user_getRetrieve the authenticated caller's identity, returning only their own account details regardless of administrative read policies.
Read the authenticated identity
Self-service: returns only the caller, independent of administrative accounts read policy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the result is "independent of administrative accounts read policy," telling the agent this call succeeds without account-listing privileges. It doesn't describe what identity fields come back, which matters since there is no output schema.
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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scoping constraint. The opening clause duplicates the title verbatim, which is minor waste, but nothing else is padding.
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-param, read-only, annotated tool the description covers purpose and the key behavioral edge case (no admin read permission needed). The one real gap is the absence of any hint about the returned identity shape, which the missing output schema leaves entirely to the caller's guess.
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; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly reinforces that the call is not parameterized by user or account identifier.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Read the authenticated identity") and adds the scope qualifier "returns only the caller," which separates it from account_get / accounts_list and the many per-service *_user_get tools. It stops short of naming a specific sibling to contrast with, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
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?
"Self-service: returns only the caller" implies when this is the right pick (you want your own identity, not a managed account), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative named despite a crowded sibling set of identity-read tools. Usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.