Return the authenticated user's profile to identify the current OpenProject session user.
Return the currently authenticated user's profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| login | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.7Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / properties / urlRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Url",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "name",
- "login",
- "url"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "login"
+]v0.3.3v0.3.0v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the subject is the *authenticated* user, implying an auth/session requirement. It does not cover rate limits or whether the profile shape varies by account type, so it adds modest value beyond annotations.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.
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?
With zero parameters, a full output schema, and rich annotations, the description needs only to establish what the tool returns and about whom. It does that; only a note on the authentication prerequisite or behavior when unauthenticated would improve it.
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 implies the target user is derived from the session rather than from a supplied identifier, which is the only parameter-relevant fact.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: return the currently authenticated user's profile. This is unambiguous and distinct from the many project/work-package getters in the sibling list, though it does not explicitly name what separates it from adjacent 'my' tools like get_my_project_access.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the usage is only implied by the phrasing 'currently authenticated user'. An agent can infer this is the identity/self-profile call, but the description does not route it against alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.