Identify the Moodle user, site, and permitted web-service functions tied to your token. Use it as the first diagnostic step when API calls fail.
Who the token belongs to, which Moodle it points at, and how many web-service functions that token is allowed to call. Run this first when something fails.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns ownership info, the Moodle target, and the count of allowed functions, which are the key behaviors. It does not mention potential failure modes or side effects, but for a read-only diagnostic tool this is adequate. The description adds meaningful context beyond the empty 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?
The description is exceptionally concise, using two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality, and the second adds a clear usage directive. No redundant or filler content—every word earns its place.
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 has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple diagnostic role, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the purpose, the usage timing, and the expected output categories. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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 schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since there are none. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately omits parameter details.
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 clearly states the tool's function: it identifies the token owner, the target Moodle instance, and the count of allowed web-service functions. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like list_functions or my_courses, which have different purposes. The phrase 'Who the token belongs to' directly addresses identity and scope.
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 instruction 'Run this first when something fails' provides a clear context for when to use the tool—during troubleshooting. It implies a diagnostic role but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. However, the guidance is actionable and sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke it first on failure.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.