Retrieves the authenticated team and API key associated with the current Pitch Mentor API request, so callers can verify identity and request context.
The team and API key making the request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond repeating the annotation title — no note on auth requirements, what 'the request' means, or that it returns the caller's own identity.
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 a single short phrase with no padding, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the sentence fragment omits the action entirely, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity.
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?
A zero-param read tool with complete annotations needs only a short clarifying line, but the description never states that it returns the authenticated team and API key identity of the current caller, which is the one fact an agent needs to select it correctly.
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 with an empty schema, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 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?
The text is a noun phrase restating the title, describing the returned resource rather than what the tool does. There is no verb (e.g., 'get', 'return') and no signal that this retrieves the calling identity, so it reads as a tautology of the name get_me.
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?
No indication of when to call this versus siblings like get_team_config, list_api_keys, or get_billing_status, all of which could plausibly be confused with 'team and API key'. An agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.