Retrieve the current VCF Automation session for the supplied Authorization header token to verify credentials and identify the active user or service account.
Returns the current session identified by credentials supplied using the Authorization header Returns the specified session for the authorization token GET /cloudapi/1.0.0/sessions/current
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the fact that the session is resolved from the Authorization header credential rather than an ID parameter, with no further behavioral context beyond that.
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 two sentences restate the same idea almost verbatim and the raw endpoint path is pasted in as a third line, which adds little for an agent choosing a tool. It is short, but the redundancy means not every line 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 no-parameter, annotation-covered read, the definition is adequate to invoke correctly, but with no output schema and no description of what a session object contains, the agent gets no hint about returned fields (user, org, expiry) that would inform follow-up calls.
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 the baseline is 4; the description correctly reinforces that no arguments are needed because the session is derived from the auth token, which is the one semantic detail that matters here.
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 clear verb+resource ('Returns the current session') and names the credential source (Authorization header), so the agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as provider_get_current_sessions (plural), provider_get_session, or provider_get_current_session_rights, which would have pushed it to a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the natural call to verify/identify the caller's own session, and the mention of the Authorization header hints at the prerequisite. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over provider_get_session or provider_get_current_sessions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.