nightmarquee_whoamiIdentify the connected NightMarquee account and list the resources it can access.
Show which NightMarquee account is connected and what it can reach.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| free | No | Prompts readable without an account | |
| No | |||
| error | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| signedIn | Yes | ||
| unlimited | No | Prompts that need Unlimited |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds 'what it can reach,' providing context about the output scope without contradicting annotations. This adds value beyond the structured hints.
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, succinct sentence that front-loads the core function. No wasted words; it gets straight to the point.
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 the tool's simplicity (no params, output schema provided, annotations cover side effects), the description is fully sufficient. An agent has all necessary information to 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?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain any parameter semantics since there are none, and the output schema handles return 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: showing the connected NightMarquee account and its accessible resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sign_in (connection) and search/get_prompt (prompt operations), so an agent can easily identify when this is the right tool.
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 context is clear: use this when you need to verify which account is connected or what it can access. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident and distinct from siblings, so no exclusions are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.