Verify Deployado authentication by retrieving the current account, user, and API token details. Use it to confirm credentials are valid before deploying or managing apps.
Show current account, user, and API token information. Useful to verify authentication is working.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload includes API token information, which is behaviorally salient, but it does not say whether the token is masked or returned in full — a meaningful omission for a read that touches credentials.
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 sentences, no waste, with the payload contents front-loaded before the diagnostic use case. Every clause earns its place and nothing is buried.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so at a high level (account, user, token). It is nearly complete for a zero-parameter identity probe; only the sensitivity/format of the token field is left unstated.
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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly avoids inventing options or filters that the empty schema does not support.
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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Show current account, user, and API token information') that no sibling duplicates — the other 50+ deployado tools operate on apps, deployments, domains, databases, and so on, none on identity. It is clear without opening the schema, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with a nearby diagnostic tool like deployado_doctor.
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?
'Useful to verify authentication is working' supplies a concrete when-to-use condition that an agent can act on. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g., deployado_doctor for broader health checks) or stating when not to call it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.