Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ado-workflows-mcp

ado-workflows-mcp

by grimlor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_current_user

Retrieves the authenticated user's display name and GUID for Azure DevOps operations, enabling self-praise filtering, commit attribution, and permission checks.

Instructions

Get the identity of the authenticated user.

Returns the display name and GUID of the user whose credentials are active for Azure DevOps operations. Useful for self-praise filtering, commit attribution, and permission checks.

Args: working_directory: Optional path for context resolution.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_current_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
working_directoryNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.12.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature or side effects. It only describes the return value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two sentences for purpose and usage, followed by a clear parameter explanation. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main functionality.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema (not seen but known), the description adequately covers return values and one optional parameter. No significant gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains the single optional parameter 'working_directory' as 'path for context resolution', adding meaningful context beyond the schema type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get the identity of the authenticated user' and specifies it returns display name and GUID, making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It mentions use cases like 'self-praise filtering, commit attribution, and permission checks' but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. However, no other sibling tool serves this purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools