Retrieves the signed-in Angi user's account details, including name, user/entity IDs, unread message count, and open/closed project totals. Requires an active signed-in browser session.
The signed-in Angi user: first name, user/entity ids, unread message count, and how many open and closed projects they have. Requires the browser tab to be signed in.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context: the exact data fields returned and the sign-in requirement. It does not disclose behavior on failure (e.g., if not signed in), but with strong annotation coverage, the additional context is sufficient.
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 sentences, both front-loaded with the key information: what the tool returns and the sign-in requirement. No filler or redundancy. 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?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete. It tells the agent what data it will get and the only precondition (sign-in). Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related content, which is appropriate since none exist.
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 returns the signed-in user's account data: first name, ids, unread count, and open/closed project counts. It names the specific resource (the signed-in Angi user) and the fields, distinguishing it from siblings that handle reviews, searches, and projects. The verb is implied but the content is unambiguous.
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 states the prerequisite 'Requires the browser tab to be signed in' but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention alternatives or conditions like 'use for current user info' or 'not for listing projects.' The sibling names make the distinction clear, but the description itself offers no direct routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.