Get current Telegram account info to verify identity and access account details. Returns user ID, name, and username.
Get current account info
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_me"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The verb 'Get' indicates a read-only operation and 'current account info' provides useful scope, which is helpful because there are no annotations to rely on. Still, the description does not disclose whether authentication is required, what fields are returned, or any other behavioral details; with no output schema this is a noticeable gap.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and the core action and resource are stated immediately.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential context: this returns information about the current account. It could be more explicit about the exact fields or response format, but nothing critical is missing for selecting or invoking the tool.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that the operation is about the current account and needs no arguments, which is sufficient for parameter understanding.
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 ('Get') and a clearly scoped resource ('current account info'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user or get_status. It is obvious what the tool does and what kind of result to expect.
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 implies this tool should be used when the current account's information is needed, and that it requires no parameters. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as get_user or get_status, and there is no when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.