Fetch the authenticated X user's profile to retrieve user ID, name, and username. Optionally specify an authorized account for multi-account setups.
Fetch the authenticated user's profile via GET /2/users/me (billed as a user read).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | X username of an authorized account (see list_accounts). Omit to use the default account. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the underlying endpoint and the billing consequence ('billed as a user read'), which is a real cost consideration for an agent deciding whether to call.
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?
One tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the endpoint and billing note appended. Nothing is wasted.
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?
A simple parameterless read whose safety profile is carried by annotations and whose parameter is fully documented by the schema. The description covers purpose, endpoint, and billing, leaving no material gap 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'account' parameter is well documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning, so baseline 3 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+resource ('Fetch the authenticated user's profile') and pins the exact endpoint (GET /2/users/me). 'Authenticated user's' implicitly distinguishes it from sibling get_users, though it never names that sibling 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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't explain how this differs from get_users or when to reach for it over other user tools; the agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.