instabox-mcp

Who am I

instabox_whoami

Read-onlyIdempotent

Shows which user or organization the configured API key belongs to, including allowed machine sizes and lifecycle policy, so you can verify that credentials work.

Instructions

Show which user/org the configured API key belongs to, including allowedSpecs (machine sizes this account may create) and lifecycle policy. Any key may call this, so it is the cheapest way to check that credentials work.

Tool call template

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": "instabox_whoami"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: it is callable by any key regardless of scope, and it is the lowest-cost operation available — both useful for an agent deciding whether to spend a call probing credentials.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler; the resource identification comes first and the operational hint second. Every clause carries information an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no input parameters there is little to cover, and although there is no output schema the description names the salient return fields so the agent knows what it will get back. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 to disambiguate. The description correctly does not waste words on parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Show which user/org the configured API key belongs to', and names the concrete return fields (allowedSpecs, lifecycle policy). No sibling tool does identity/key introspection, so it is unambiguous even against create_machine which consumes allowedSpecs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Any key may call this, so it is the cheapest way to check that credentials work' explicitly tells the agent the use case (credential validation) and that no privilege is required. No explicit 'when not to use', but no realistic alternative competes with it, so the guidance is practically complete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.