Fetch the authenticated npm user's profile details, including name, email, 2FA status, and creation date, to verify whether two-factor authentication is enabled for publishing.
Get the authenticated user's npm profile — name, email, 2FA status, creation date. Useful for checking whether 2FA is enabled (which affects token requirements for publishing).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond that: it confirms the tool operates on the authenticated user (implying auth requirements), lists the returned fields, and links the 2FA status to publishing workflow. No contradiction with annotations.
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 two concise sentences, leads with the action and resource, and every phrase adds value. It is appropriately front-loaded and free of redundancy.
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?
Given a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It lists the returned fields, implies the need for authentication, and cites a concrete use case, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it 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?
The input schema has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4.
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 ('Get') and resource ('authenticated user's npm profile') and enumerates the fields returned (name, email, 2FA status, creation date). This distinguishes it from siblings like npm_whoami, which likely returns only the username.
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?
It explicitly states a key use case: checking whether 2FA is enabled and how that affects token requirements for publishing. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.