clio_who_am_iRetrieve the signed-in Clio user's ID, name, email, roles, and rate-limit status to verify the connection and find your user ID.
Returns the signed-in Clio user (id, name, e-mail, roles) and the current rate-limit state. Use it to verify the connection and to find your own user id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0-beta.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Returns' and usefully discloses that rate-limit state is included, but says nothing about authentication requirements or failure modes for an auth-adjacent tool.
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 sentences, zero waste, with the return contents front-loaded ahead of the usage guidance.
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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the key return fields and gives clear intent. Only auth/prerequisite context is missing, which is minor here.
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 schema baseline is 4. There is no parameter information for the description to add or omit.
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 ('Returns') and resource ('the signed-in Clio user'), and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, e-mail, roles) plus rate-limit state. It is distinguishable from clio_users_list (which lists other users), though it does not name that sibling explicitly.
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?
Explicitly gives two use cases: verifying the connection and finding your own user id. There is no exclusion language or named alternative (e.g., clio_auth_status), so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.