Retrieve information about the authenticated Make.com user. Use it to verify account identity and access details before running scenarios or managing connections.
Get information about the authenticated user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation and authentication requirement via 'Get' and 'authenticated user', but does not state side-effect safety, permissions, rate limits, or return format. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the purpose.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter and communicates its purpose immediately.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. Without an output schema, it should explain what information is returned (e.g., fields like id, email, name), and it provides no usage context, leaving gaps for an agent that needs to know 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 has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The empty schema is fully described by its absence of properties, and the description appropriately adds no parameter details since there are none.
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 ('Get') and resource ('information about the authenticated user'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no sibling tool targets the current user, so the lack of explicit comparison is a minor gap.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context beyond the purpose itself. There is no sentence about when-not-to-use or what other tools might be relevant, leaving usage entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.