Retrieve the authenticated caller's canonical EP UUID and current role to verify identity and permissions before processing second-brain-mcp requests.
Return the authenticated caller's canonical EP UUID and current role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes | ||
| user_id | Yes | ||
| rbac_enforced | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is scoped to the caller's own identity and includes a role, which is useful, but it says nothing about what happens on an unauthenticated call or how the UUID should be interpreted.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word carries meaning and nothing is redundant with the title or schema.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and it already names the two fields returned. For a trivial zero-parameter identity tool this is nearly complete; only the absence of any when-to-use cue keeps it short of a 5.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.
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 ('Return') and a specific resource (the authenticated caller's canonical EP UUID and current role). No sibling tool overlaps with this identity-lookup purpose, so an agent can distinguish it 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?
Usage is implied by the self-referential scope ('the authenticated caller's'), which is enough for a zero-parameter identity probe, but the description never explicitly says when to call it (e.g. at session start, to resolve the acting user's ID) or names any alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.