Retrieve the authenticated Safe Mind account and associated company details to verify which organization and user are connected before running risk assessment tasks.
Show the authenticated Safe Mind account and company.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does convey that results are scoped to the authenticated caller (an implicit auth requirement and read-only nature). It says nothing about what is returned beyond the two entity names, and no other behavioral traits (permissions, errors) are covered.
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 short sentence with the verb and the scoped resource front-loaded; there is no filler or redundancy.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it does name the returned entities (account and company). It stops short of describing the fields or shape of that account/company payload, but for a zero-parameter identity tool this is close to sufficient.
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 declares zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter gap.
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 ("Show") and a clear resource (the authenticated Safe Mind account and company), letting an agent recognize this as whoami-style identity retrieval rather than a sibling operation like safe_mind_register or safe_mind_get_api_key. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, but the resource is distinct enough that differentiation is easy.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, nor on prerequisites beyond the word "authenticated." With zero parameters and an obvious identity-retrieval role, usage is largely implied, but the description itself supplies no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.