get_current_userGet the authenticated user's identity and directly assigned, active roles
Get the authenticated user's identity and directly assigned, active roles
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Extra sys_user fields to return besides user_name, user_display_name, user_email, user_sys_id and roles |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.1Input schema / properties / fields / descriptionPrevious value: -"Comma-separated fields to return (default: user_name,name,email,roles)"New value: +"Extra sys_user fields to return besides user_name, user_display_name, user_email, user_sys_id and roles"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, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral nuance beyond that: roles returned are only directly assigned and active, preventing an agent from assuming inherited or inactive roles are included.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier is attached directly to the resource being fetched.
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-required-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, the description covers identity plus the role scoping. Return shape is partially implied via the schema's field list, so nothing essential is missing, though error/auth-failure behavior is unstated.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'fields' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the default returned fields. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb and resource (get the authenticated user's identity), plus a precise scope qualifier: only 'directly assigned, active roles'. This distinguishes it from generic record-fetching siblings like get_record, though it does not name any alternative tool by name.
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 implied by the phrase 'authenticated user's identity' — an agent can infer this is for identifying the calling user — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named (e.g., get_record for arbitrary users).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.