clockwork-mcp-remote

get_auth_user

Retrieve the authenticated user associated with a specific Laravel request ID, enabling user-specific debugging in Clockwork remote profiling.

Instructions

Get authenticated user for a request

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "requestId": "<requestId>"
    },
    "name": "get_auth_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`token`	No	Pre-authenticated X-Clockwork-Auth token (alternative to password)
`baseUrl`	No	Clockwork application base URL (e.g. https://my-app.test). Overrides CLOCKWORK_BASE_URL / local storage for this call
`password`	No	Clockwork authentication password
`username`	No	Clockwork authentication username
`requestId`	Yes	Clockwork request ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does 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 only restates the operation ('Get authenticated user') and does not mention whether credentials are required, what the response looks like, or whether any side effects occur.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the main action. While brief, it avoids repetition and does not waste words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides almost no context beyond the tool name's meaning. It does not clarify how requestId relates to the result, how authentication is resolved, or what the response contains, leaving important gaps for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters including the credential alternatives and baseUrl override. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('authenticated user for a request'), making the tool's core function understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but no sibling appears to have the same purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or caveats. There are no explicit exclusions or references to sibling tools like get_session_data or get_request.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.