Retrieves the current user's TUMonline identity details—TUM ID, name, and obfuscated IDs—for read-only account identification; requires the identity permission.
Read wbservicesbasic.id for this user: TUM ID, name, and obfuscated ids. Requires the identity right. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing the required permission ('identity right') and describing what data comes back (TUM ID, name, obfuscated ids) in the absence of an output schema. It does not describe failure behavior when the right is missing, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 compact sentence front-loads the action and scope, then the payload, then the prerequisite. No filler, no restatement of the tool name as a standalone sentence.
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?
For a zero-parameter, non-destructive read with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, that it is self-scoped, that it is read-only, and what permission is required.
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 the schema carries no semantics to supplement and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed by framing everything as 'for this user'.
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 a specific verb (read) plus the exact resource (the caller's identity record) and enumerates the returned fields (TUM ID, name, obfuscated ids). The phrase 'for this user' implicitly scopes it to the caller, which distinguishes it from person-lookup siblings such as get_person or search_persons, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 context is implied rather than stated: 'for this user' tells an agent this returns the authenticated caller's identity, not an arbitrary person. The only explicit constraint is the prerequisite 'Requires the identity right'. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_person, search_persons, or get_token_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.