get_current_userRetrieve the Instatus user profile linked to your API key, including ID, name, and email. Use it to identify the authenticated account for status page operations.
Get the Instatus user that owns the API key (id, name, email).
| 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 and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the key behavioral trait that the returned user is the owner of the API key, plus the concrete fields returned. It stops short of mentioning auth failure behavior, so it is not 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the returned fields in a compact parenthesis. No filler or redundancy.
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-parameter, read-only identity lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the essential facts: what is fetched and which fields come back. It omits only edge behavior such as invalid or expired API keys, a minor gap for this complexity level.
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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical field list (id, name, email) usefully pre-announces the response shape in the absence of an output schema.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (the Instatus user that owns the API key), and names the returned fields (id, name, email). This clearly distinguishes it from all siblings, which operate on status pages, components, incidents, and maintenances rather than the authenticated user.
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 usage context is implied rather than stated: 'the user that owns the API key' hints that this identifies the caller associated with the credentials, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Adequate but with a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.