Fetch the authenticated user's profile and permissions in Linear to customize interactions and verify access.
Get information about the currently authenticated user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| No | |||
| active | No | ||
| displayName | No | ||
| organization | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, such as the 'currently authenticated' nuance, but does not disclose any additional traits like auth requirements or rate limits. Since annotations carry the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no redundant information or filler, making it optimally sized for the tool's simplicity.
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, read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to call it correctly. There are no hidden parameters, side effects, or additional context required. The tool's complexity is low, and the description is complete.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (vacuously), the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and no additional meaning is required. The description is consistent with the empty input schema.
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 a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('information about the currently authenticated user'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on other resources (teams, projects, issues) without needing further detail.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with any sibling tool. While the purpose implies usage for retrieving the current user's profile, there is no explicit routing or comparative context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.