Retrieve the current user's profile details and their associated teams from Linear.
Get current user information including teams
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_viewer"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.15Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds the detail 'including teams' but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. Since it is a read-only retrieval, transparency is adequate but not rich.
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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part is relevant and front-loaded.
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?
Given no output schema and a simple purpose, the description is reasonably complete. It notes 'including teams' which adds value, but could mention other common fields like email or role. Still sufficient for its simplicity.
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?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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 the tool retrieves current user information including teams, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from all sibling tools which focus on issues, comments, or projects.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of retrieving user info makes usage implied. No when-not or exclusion details are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.