whoamiRetrieve school label, student IDs for passing as leerlingId to other tools, and visible parent-portal sections. Use it to find child profiles without tokens.
Start here: the school label, the numeric leerling ids to pass as leerlingId to other tools, and which parent-portal sections are visible. Use children for full profiles. No tokens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds valuable context beyond those: it signals the tool is a starting point and that it provides IDs needed by other tools. The phrase 'No tokens' likely indicates no authentication tokens are required, adding auth-related clarity. It stops short of describing error behavior or rate limits, so a 4 is appropriate.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the most important instruction ('Start here'), and contains no filler. Each clause delivers actionable information: what it returns, when to use it, and an alternative.
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 has no input parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient detail: it lists the three key pieces of information returned and names the sibling to use for more detail. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call 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 tool accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rules, a tool with 0 parameters gets 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 states exactly what the tool returns: the school label, numeric leerling IDs for use as leerlingId, and visible parent-portal sections. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'children' by noting 'Use children for full profiles.' This gives an agent a clear, specific purpose without needing to open any schema.
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 description begins with 'Start here,' explicitly telling the agent this is the first tool to call. It also names an alternative ('Use children for full profiles') and the condition that selects it. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.