Retrieve your current Cursor account email, user ID, and grokbot schema version to verify identity and confirm API compatibility before calling cloud agents.
Current Cursor account email, user_id, and grokbot SCHEMA_VERSION.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description usefully discloses the three concrete values returned (email, user_id, SCHEMA_VERSION), which is real added context, but it says nothing about auth requirements, failure modes, or whether the identity is derived from a session or credential.
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?
A single compact clause with zero filler; the returned fields are listed up front and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.
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?
With no output schema, the description must enumerate the return values, and it does so completely for a zero-parameter read tool. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing, though a brief note on when the identity is useful would round it out.
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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 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 names the exact resource it returns — the current Cursor account email, user_id, and grokbot SCHEMA_VERSION — which is specific and clearly distinguishable from every sibling (all of which act on agents, secrets, or handoffs). It lacks an explicit verb like 'Return', but the noun phrase is unambiguous about what the tool is for.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives. The identity-check use case is only inferable from the name 'whoami' and the returned fields, so the agent gets no explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.