Get the authenticated user's profile from Follow Up Boss to confirm identity and access rights.
Retrieve information about the currently authenticated user. (GET /me)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| extraQuery | No | Extra raw query parameters not explicitly listed above — e.g. FUB custom field filters like custom.ClosingDate on /people or /deals. Keys and values are sent as-is. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Retrieve') but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior. It adds little beyond the endpoint itself, leaving agents to infer the operational profile.
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 a single concise sentence, front-loading the core purpose. It includes the endpoint in parentheses for reference without unnecessary verbosity. Every word earns its place.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no required fields, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits any details about the response format, authentication implications, or potential errors. Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, a bit more context about expected behavior would make it more complete, but the tool's simplicity keeps it at a moderate level.
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 description does not mention the extraQuery parameter at all, but the input schema provides a detailed description of it. Since schema coverage is 100%, the schema adequately explains the parameter. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high coverage.
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 ('Retrieve'), resource ('information about the currently authenticated user'), and endpoint ('GET /me'). This is clear and distinguishes it from siblings like get_user, which targets a specific user. The tool name reinforces the meaning.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, authentication requirements, or situations where get_user or list_users would be more appropriate. The description is purely a statement of function with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.