Retrieve the signed-in Vinted member's ID, login, item, follower and feedback counters, verification status, and location. Use it to confirm which account is authenticated and inspect profile details.
The signed-in member: id, login, counters (items, followers, feedback), verification and location.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists returned fields but does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, what happens when unauthenticated, or any rate-limit or side-effect behavior.
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 one compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by a useful field list. It contains no filler or repeated information.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a high-level field list but omits exact output shape, types, authentication expectations, and error behavior. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.
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 are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline score for a no-parameter tool is 4.
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 identifies the resource as the signed-in member and lists the fields returned, which distinguishes it from the sibling get_user by scope. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement of what the tool does.
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 phrase 'signed-in member' implies using this tool for current-user identity, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as session_status or get_user.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.