get_meRetrieve the Zammad user account linked to the current token, including ID, login, name, email, and roles for permission checks and profile lookups.
Return the Zammad user the current token belongs to (id, login, name, email, roles).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the token-scoped return fields, which does not go far beyond the structured annotations and 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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the operation, the scoping condition, and the returned fields without any wasted text.
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 tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It identifies the current-token user context and the fields returned, while the output schema can define return structure in detail.
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 the baseline according to the rubric is 4. Schema description coverage is also 100%, meaning structured fields already handle parameter documentation.
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 and resource: 'Return the Zammad user the current token belongs to.' It also identifies the returned identity fields, making the tool's scope unambiguous even without sibling tools.
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 phrase 'the current token belongs to' provides clear context for when this tool applies: retrieving the authenticated user for the active token. No alternatives exist among sibling tools, so no exclusions are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.