Retrieve current user information to identify the authenticated user and verify access rights on Kafka clusters.
Get current user info
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_me"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns current user info, but does not disclose further behavioral details such as return format or auth dependencies. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.
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 contains the full purpose with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.
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 tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the agent gets: current user info. There are no arguments to specify and no edge cases to mention, so nothing necessary is missing.
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 has zero parameters, so the 100% schema description coverage is trivial and the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. Per the rubric, zero parameters earns a baseline of 4, and no further explanation is needed.
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 ('Get') and resource ('current user info'), making the tool's function unambiguous. Among the many sibling tools focused on environments, topics, groups, schemas, and nodes, get_me is the only one about the current user, so it is easily distinguished without opening the schema.
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?
The description clearly implies the usage context: call this tool whenever current user information is needed. There are no alternative tools for this purpose, so no exclusion guidance is necessary; the context is clear even without explicit when/when-not statements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.