Check your current authentication status on the StremAI MCP server to confirm you are logged in.
Show your current authentication status.
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": "agentbay_whoami"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.5Does 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 'authentication status' focus but does not disclose return format, session details, or any rate-limit behavior; this is acceptable for a read-only status tool but not rich.
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 focused sentence fully describes the tool's purpose with no filler. Every word 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?
For a no-parameter, read-only whoami tool, the description is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit statement of what the returned authentication status includes, but the named resource is enough for correct invocation.
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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage with an empty properties object, so there is no parameter information for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are required.
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 ('Show') and a concrete resource ('your current authentication status'). It is immediately distinct from the sibling memory tools and signup, matching the conventional whoami semantic.
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 establishes clear context: call this when the current authentication status is needed. There are no overlapping siblings for this task, so explicit exclusions are unnecessary; the zero-parameter design reinforces that it is a direct status query.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.