get_userRetrieves the authenticated YNAB user ID for credential diagnostics; use ynab_auth_status to check credentials without an API request.
Get authenticated user ID. For credential diagnostics without an API request, use ynab_auth_status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v6.1.0Input 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"v5.4.0Output schema / properties / result / descriptionRemoved value: -"Structured result returned by Get User."v5.1.1Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {
+ "description": "Structured result returned by Get User."
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful context that this is the authenticated-user API path, contrasted with the no-API-request diagnostic path, though it does not discuss auth failure behavior.
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 short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the alternative routing immediately after. There is no redundant or filler text.
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 rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: identity of the resource and when to use the diagnostic alternative. Return values and safety traits are handled by structured metadata.
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 there is no parameter semantics burden. The schema coverage is fully complete, and the description does not need to explain inputs.
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 specific verb and resource: getting the authenticated user ID. It also distinguishes the relevant sibling, ynab_auth_status, for credential diagnostics, so an agent can tell which tool to select without opening schemas.
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?
It gives an explicit when-not condition: use ynab_auth_status for credential diagnostics without an API request. That directly routes the agent between this operation and the closest alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.