Retrieve the current user's identity and authorization context for access control. Optionally request full profile details when needed.
Return compact current-user identity and authorization context, or explicit full profile detail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| detailLevel | No | compact (default) omits contact and postal profile fields. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / detailLevelAdded value: +{
+ "description": "compact (default) omits contact and postal profile fields.",
+ "enum": [
+ "compact",
+ "full"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {},
+ "meta": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "errors": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "component": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "component",
+ "code",
+ "message"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "operations": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "page": {},
+ "partial": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "truncated": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "operations",
+ "partial",
+ "errors",
+ "page",
+ "truncated"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "data",
+ "meta"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the compact-versus-full behavioral distinction, which is useful, but it does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, or what 'authorization context' contains. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence states the core purpose and optional variation with no wasted words. Every clause earns its place.
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?
This is a simple one-optional-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, annotations, and full parameter documentation. The description, combined with the schema and annotations, gives an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly.
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%: the detailLevel parameter is fully described with an enum and default. The description merely echoes the compact/full distinction without adding new semantic information, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies a clear resource: the current user's identity and authorization context. It also signals an optional mode ('compact' vs 'explicit full profile detail'), which distinguishes it from the device-, server-, and organization-focused sibling tools.
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 clearly establishes when to use this tool: when the current user's identity or authorization context is needed. It also implies the compact/full choice through the detailLevel parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with related sibling tools like validate_session or get_organization_context, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.