Retrieves the authenticated Backlog user's profile and account details so you can identify the current user before managing projects, issues, or wiki pages.
Returns information about the authenticated user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / organizationRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
- "type": "string"
-}v0.11.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / organizationAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note about what identity context it requires, whether it may fail when unauthenticated, or what fields come back — so it earns no credit over the annotations.
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?
A single short sentence with no waste and the key qualifier ('authenticated user') up front. Efficiency is fine, but the extreme brevity leaves substance gaps rather than trimming redundancy.
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 no-param read tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. It still omits the most useful thing an agent would want — roughly what user fields are returned (id, name, email) and whether this is the canonical way to resolve 'me' before calling user-scoped tools.
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; the empty schema is self-explanatory. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.
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 ('information about the authenticated user'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_users that targets arbitrary users. It does not explicitly name that sibling or say what 'information' is included, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_users or get_user_recent_updates, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The intended use (fetch the caller's own identity) is only weakly implied by the phrase 'authenticated user'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.