Retrieve the current agent's identity details and API key to authenticate and enable task delegation.
获取当前 Agent 的身份信息和 API Key
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_agent_identity"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It reveals that the tool returns identity and API Key, implying a read operation. However, it does not disclose security implications, authentication needs, or side effects. This is minimal but not misleading.
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 that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no redundant information or filler, making it highly efficient.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (identity and API Key). It lacks format specifics but is sufficient for a basic getter. The absence of output schema slightly raises the burden, but the simple nature keeps completeness near high.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly avoids explaining parameters since none exist, and it adds value by indicating the returned data rather than parameter detail.
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 function: '获取当前 Agent 的身份信息和 API Key' (get the current Agent's identity info and API Key). It uses a specific verb ('获取') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_agent_balance or get_human.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool or when not to, and it does not reference any alternatives. For a simple getter, the intended usage is implied but not explicitly stated, earning a score of 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.