id_get_meRetrieve the connected Akahu user's identity and profile details, including user ID, email, and joined name, to identify the account owner.
Return identity/profile data for the connected Akahu user.
Returns {"id": str, "email": str | None, "name": str | None}, where name joins the profile's first_name and last_name when present.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful detail about the returned identity fields and how name is assembled, but it does not cover auth requirements, error behavior, or other operational context.
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 two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no wasted text. The return-value detail is compact and useful.
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?
Given the empty input schema, existing output schema, and read-only annotation, the description is nearly complete for this simple tool. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation from id_verify_name.
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 no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools 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 description states a specific verb and resource: return identity/profile data for the connected Akahu user. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling id_verify_name 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?
Usage is implied by the phrase 'for the connected Akahu user,' but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as id_verify_name. It is adequate for a simple no-parameter identity lookup but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.