Identify the current Jira user by retrieving their account details, display name, email, and avatar URLs. This provides authenticated user information for personalization and authorization checks.
Get details of the authenticated Jira user. Returns information about the current user including account ID, display name, email, and avatar URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a read-only operation that returns user details, which is helpful. It does not describe authentication-failure behavior or edge cases, but for a simple get-current-user operation the transparency is adequate.
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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and resource, while the second adds valuable return-field details. There is no redundant or filler content.
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 tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: it names the resource and lists key return fields. It does not discuss potential errors or explicitly contrast with the Confluence sibling, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed by referring to the authenticated user, and it adds useful context about what data will be returned.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get details of the authenticated Jira user') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_jira_user by emphasizing 'authenticated' and 'current'. It also enumerates returned fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 'authenticated Jira user' implies this tool is for retrieving the caller's own profile rather than an arbitrary user, which provides implicit usage context. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_jira_user or mention any exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.