bticket_whoamiRetrieves the authenticated B-Ticket user's profile, including ID, name, email, roles, and notification flags. Use it to verify current session credentials.
Retorna o usuário autenticado na API B-Ticket (GET /api/user), incluindo id, nome, e-mail, papéis e flags de notificações.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying exactly which user attributes are returned (id, nome, e-mail, papéis, flags de notificações) and the endpoint, giving the agent a clear picture of the response content without needing to inspect output schemas.
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, dense sentence delivers all necessary information: the action, the endpoint, and the returned fields. No wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Excellent structure for quick consumption.
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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the operation, the resource, and the response contents. Annotations cover safety aspects, and there are no missing details an agent would need to call this tool correctly.
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?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; it correctly focuses on what the tool does and returns. It adds meaningful context about the response fields, which is sufficient for a no-input tool.
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 verb 'Retorna' (returns) and the resource 'usuário autenticado' (authenticated user), including the specific endpoint GET /api/user. It also lists the fields returned (id, name, email, roles, notification flags), which is precise and distinguishes it from sibling list/create tools that target other entities.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is self-evident (fetching current user identity) and there is no sibling that performs a similar function, so usage is implied. Lacks explicit exclusions or context, which keeps it at an average score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.