get_current_userRetrieve the currently authenticated user's details from ServiceNow, including username, display name, email, and roles, for context or authorization checks.
Get the currently authenticated user's information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Comma-separated fields to return (default: user_name,name,email,roles) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover the primary behavioral traits. The description adds no conflicting or additional side effects. However, it does not describe the exact return format (e.g., single object, field availability), but this is a minor gap given the simplicity of a read operation.
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 sentence that conveys the entire purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately brief for a simple getter tool, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand its function. It does not mention edge cases like unauthenticated users, but such details are not critical for selecting and invoking this tool. Overall, the description provides complete context for its intended use.
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 schema fully describes the single optional 'fields' parameter, including its type, default value, and meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra semantic value beyond what is already provided, placing this at the baseline score.
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 explicitly states the tool's function: retrieving the currently authenticated user's information. This is a clear, specific action that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_record or get_ci, which operate on different resource types.
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 states what the tool does but does not explicitly indicate when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites (e.g., authentication required). While the name is self-explanatory, the lack of usage context or comparison to sibling tools leaves the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.