contract-testing_get_user_preferencesRetrieves the current user’s preferences to help AI assistants tailor contract-testing actions and settings in SmartBear.
Retrieve the current user's preferences.
Toolset: User, Tokens and Preferences
Parameters: None
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _links | No | ||
| _embedded | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.43.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$defs": {
+ "EmbeddedLink": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "href": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "templated": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "Preference": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "_links": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "self": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/EmbeddedLink"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "uuid": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {}
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "_embedded": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "preferences": {
+ "items": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/Preference"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "_links": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "self": {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/EmbeddedLink"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.40.0v0.34.0v0.27.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without prose. The description adds only the 'current user' scoping detail; it says nothing about authentication requirements or whether preferences can be absent.
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 core sentence is front-loaded and unambiguous. The 'Toolset' and 'Parameters: None' boilerplate is mildly redundant against the schema but does not obscure anything.
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 no-argument, read-only lookup with a declared output schema and full annotation coverage, nothing further is required for an agent to call it correctly. The remaining gap, sibling differentiation, is captured under purpose clarity rather than completeness.
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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description's explicit 'Parameters: None' matches the empty schema and correctly signals the tool needs no arguments.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve the current user's preferences'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as contract-testing_get_system_preferences or contract-testing_get_current_user, leaving the user-vs-system scope split implicit.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no named alternative, and no prerequisites. The only hint is 'current user's', which implies a scoped read but never says when to prefer this over get_system_preferences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.