action1_get_meRetrieve the authenticated user's current settings in markdown or JSON to inspect account preferences and configuration.
Get the current user settings. Gets settings for the currently authenticated user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verbose | No | Skip per-item compactor. | |
| response_format | No | Output format. Default markdown. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -trueNew value: +{}Output schema / properties / valueAdded value: +{}v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that—no note about permissions, scope of 'settings', or whether enterprise-level settings are excluded—making the second sentence pure restatement.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence is a near-verbatim restatement of the first ('Get the current user settings' vs 'Gets settings for the currently authenticated user'), so half the text does not earn its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. Still, for a tool with a very close sibling (action1_get_user) the description leaves the agent to infer the distinction on its own.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'verbose' and 'response_format' documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about how these parameters affect the returned settings.
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 clear verb+resource (get user settings) and adds the scoping qualifier 'currently authenticated user', which implicitly separates it from the sibling action1_get_user that takes a user identifier. However, it never names that sibling or any alternative, so differentiation is left to inference.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer action1_get_user or action1_get_enterprise instead, and no preconditions. Only the passive implication of 'current user' hints at usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.