vivid_whoamiChecks the VIVID connection by returning the linked account's name, email, plan, and remaining credits so you can verify API key access before generating images or videos.
Return the VIVID account linked to the API key: name, email, plan and remaining credits. Call this first to check the connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.36.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so safety is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts on top of that: the identity scope is the API key, and the call is a safe first step to validate credentials before other operations. It doesn't describe failure behavior for an invalid key, which is the only remaining gap.
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?
Two short sentences with zero redundancy. The payload description comes first and the actionable recommendation ('call this first') is front-loaded where an agent will see it.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the four returned fields, which is exactly what an agent needs from an identity call. For a parameterless read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing material is missing.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly doesn't clutter itself with input discussion and instead spends its words on what the call returns.
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 VIVID account linked to the API key') and enumerates the returned fields (name, email, plan, remaining credits). No sibling tool overlaps this purpose, so the agent can select it unambiguously.
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?
Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call this first to check the connection'), which is the key selection signal for a diagnostics/identity call. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, but none of the siblings plausibly compete with it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.