get_authorising_individualRetrieve the name, date of birth, email, and phone of the person who authorised a token. Use it to verify identity and contact the authoriser.
Returns the person who authorised this token (name, date of birth, email, phone).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned data fields, which is useful, but says nothing about behaviour when no authorising individual is present or what authorisation context is assumed.
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, front-loaded sentence with the resource stated first and the return payload in parentheses. No wasted words.
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?
With no output schema, the parenthetical field list partially compensates by telling the agent what comes back. However, it omits edge-case behaviour (no authorising individual, token types without one), which matters for a zero-parameter lookup tool an agent must call blind.
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, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the implicit 'this token' scope, which it does state.
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 (Returns) and resource (the person who authorised this token), plus the fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_token_identity or get_individual_details, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus other identity-returning siblings, and no preconditions (e.g. which token, whether an authorising individual always exists). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and phrasing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.