bb_whoamiRetrieve the signed-in Blackboard user's name, username, student ID, email, and roles to verify authentication and confirm the configured instance before proceeding.
Returns the signed-in Blackboard user (name, username, student id, email, institution roles) and the configured instance. Use this to confirm authentication is working before other calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true pinning down the safety profile. The description adds value beyond annotations by naming the exact identity fields returned (name, username, student id, email) and the configured instance, plus its role as an auth check.
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, front-loaded with the return payload, and the usage hint is one short clause. No filler.
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 identity introspection tool with read-only annotations warning, this is nearly complete. It doesn't spell out error behavior on failed auth (e.g., returns null vs throws), but that's a minor gap.
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 input schema has zero parameters desk definition is complete. Baseline 4 for a no-param tool. Nothing to add.
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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') with a clear resource (signed-in Blackboard user) and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, username, email, institution roles, instance). This is self-explanatory as a whoami operation and is plainly distinct from siblings like bb_session_status or bb_unread_counts.
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 explicitly states when to use it: confirm authentication is working before other calls. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but for a whoami tool that's natural context. It gives a clear use-before-other-calls signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.