bytebase_whoamiVerify your Bytebase token by returning server version, mapped identity, and remaining validity. Run this first to diagnose 401/403 authentication errors.
Verify the configured Bytebase token: returns the server version, the identity it maps to, and how long the token remains valid. Run this first when anything returns 401/403.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does 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 discloses what the tool returns (server version, identity, token validity) and implies it is a read-only, safe diagnostic, but it does not explain potential side effects (though likely none) or what happens on failure. It could be more explicit about being non-destructive, but the described behavior is clear enough.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear usage trigger. Zero waste, every word earns its place.
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 diagnostic tool, the description is almost complete. It covers what it does and when to use it. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that it performs no side effects or changes, but given the tool's simplicity and the output list provided, this is a minor omission.
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 has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, meaning there is nothing for the description to add. With zero parameters, baseline is 4, and the description appropriately adds context about what the tool returns without needing parameter details.
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 (verify) and resource (Bytebase token) with concrete outputs (server version, identity, token validity). The title explicitly frames it as identity & connectivity check, which further clarifies its purpose. Distinct from siblings, which are all data/resource operations (list, search, describe, query, create, etc.), so an agent can tell it apart immediately.
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?
Provides explicit guidance to run this tool first when any operation returns 401/403, which is a clear and actionable use case. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or alternatives (e.g., other auth-related tools), but given the sibling context shows no other similar tool, the guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.