Identify your role and permissions on each board before acting. Call this first to learn what you are allowed to do.
Who am I, and what role do I hold on each board? Call this first — it tells you what you are allowed to do before you try.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns identity and role information, and that it is a prerequisite for understanding permissions. However, it doesn't detail the return format or potential side effects (though it's likely a read-only operation). With zero annotations, more context could be given, but the description adds some value.
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?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core question and then the key usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and it's efficiently structured.
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 that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does and when to call it. It could be slightly more complete by hinting at what 'allowed to do' entails (e.g., permissions), but overall it's adequate for an agent to invoke 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?
There are no parameters (0 params), so per the baseline, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly avoids doing so.
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's purpose: revealing the caller's identity and their role on each board. This is a specific verb (whoami) and resource (identity/roles), distinguishing it from siblings like list_boards or get_item. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from every sibling, but the purpose is unmistakable.
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?
It explicitly says 'Call this first — it tells you what you are allowed to do before you try.' This gives a clear when-to-use directive and implies it should be used before attempting other operations, guiding the agent on sequencing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.