get_current_userRetrieve the current Calendly user profile and account details to identify the authenticated account before accessing calendar data.
Get current user. Reads Calendly data. Required scopes: users:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Named private Calendly account; selects credentials, not an organization URI. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful operational context the annotations lack: the required OAuth scope 'users:read', which is essential for an agent to know whether the call will succeed.
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?
Three short fragments, front-loaded with the action, then domain, then scope. No wasted words, though the telegraphic style borders on under-explained.
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 read tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, there is no output schema, so the description could reasonably say what the user object contains; it does not, leaving the return shape opaque.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single optional 'account' parameter is fully explained in the schema (selects credentials, not an organization URI). The description adds no parameter detail, so baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get current user') and clarifies the data domain ('Reads Calendly data'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_user' (which presumably targets an arbitrary user), but never says so explicitly, so an agent must infer the difference.
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?
No guidance on when to prefer this over 'get_user' or 'get_organization', and no prerequisites beyond scopes. The agent is left to infer that 'current' means the authenticated caller.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.