Verify your OpenStreetMap authentication status and retrieve current user information to confirm secure access before editing map data.
Check authentication status and get current user information.
Returns: Dictionary containing authentication status and user info
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which fully cover the safety profile. The description adds that the result is a dictionary containing authentication status and user information, which is consistent with annotations and mildly useful, but not substantially beyond them.
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?
The description is short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The return-type note is brief and does not burden the agent with unneeded detail.
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-argument status-checking tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It identifies the tool's purpose and result type, and there are no parameters or hidden prerequisites that an agent would need to know before invoking it.
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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The 0-parameter case warrants a baseline of 4, and no description compensation 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 states a clear, specific action: 'Check authentication status and get current user information.' This is a distinct purpose and is not confused with any sibling OSM data or editing tool.
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 makes the tool's context obvious: it is for retrieving authentication state and user identity. It does not explicitly mention ahead of edit operations, but no alternative tool competes for this purpose, so the usage context is clear despite lacking exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.