Retrieve the authenticated staff member tied to the current OAuth token. Use it to verify Accelo authentication is working.
Get the currently authenticated staff member (whoami).
Useful for verifying authentication is working. Returns the staff member associated with the current OAuth token.
Args: fields: Additional fields to return
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No |
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 full burden. It usefully discloses that the result is derived from the current OAuth token (no ID input required), but says nothing about read-only safety, rate limits, or authorization requirements.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action and kept short. The 'Args:' block is slightly boilerplate for a single optional parameter but not wasteful.
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 simple, single-optional-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns and the auth context. The only gap is lack of detail on the 'fields' argument.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but 'fields: Additional fields to return' merely restates the parameter name. It gives no format, syntax, or examples for how to specify fields. Only one optional param keeps this from being lower.
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+resource: 'Get the currently authenticated staff member (whoami).' The 'currently authenticated' / whoami framing distinguishes it from the generic accelo_get_staff sibling, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.
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?
Provides one concrete use case ('verifying authentication is working'), which implies when to reach for it. However, it never explicitly contrasts with accelo_get_staff or accelo_list_staff, and gives no condition for choosing this over those.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.