Retrieve the authenticated GitLab user to confirm your token and base URL work before any write operation.
Get the authenticated user. Call this first: it is the cheapest way to prove the token and base URL work before any write.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| web_url | No | ||
| username | No | ||
| avatar_url | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: that this is the cheapest auth/URL validation and should precede writes. It doesn't describe rate limits or return shape, but the output schema exists and an auth check needs little more.
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 compact sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and then the routing rationale. Every clause carries information.
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-only identity check with an output schema and annotations covering safety, this is fully complete. An agent knows what it does, when to call it, and why.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to identify the caller from the token.
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+resource: 'Get the authenticated user.' This is unmistakably distinct from every sibling (which are all about projects, MRs, pipelines, etc.), and the response semantics are clear.
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 says when to use it ('Call this first') and why ('cheapest way to prove the token and base URL work before any write'), effectively routing the agent to this tool as a connectivity/auth check rather than to a heavier sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.