Wise MCP Server

Who the token belongs to

get_me

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves the Wise account holder's name, email, and active status from the current token to verify user identity and account state.

Instructions

The Wise user this token belongs to: name, email, and whether the account is active.

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": "get_me"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's added value is naming the three returned fields, which matters because no output schema exists, but it says nothing about behavior on an invalid or expired token.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the identity subject first and the returned fields second, which is the right order for scanning.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-argument, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the missing return-value information (name, email, active flag), which is the main gap it needed to fill. It falls short only in not distinguishing itself from the profile-related siblings.

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, so there is no parameter meaning to convey; baseline applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by scoping everything to 'this token'.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific resource — the Wise user the current token belongs to — and enumerates the returned fields (name, email, active status). It is clear what the tool does, but it never acknowledges the nearby get_profile / list_profiles siblings, so an agent must still infer whether 'me' is the same thing as a profile.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: 'this token belongs to' suggests it is for identifying the authenticated caller, with no arguments needed. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_profile, nor any prerequisite about token scope.

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