Retrieve the signed-in user's Microsoft profile and verify authentication is working.
Return the signed-in user's profile.
Also a smoke test that authentication is working.
Args: include_raw: when True, include the raw Graph payload under "raw".
Returns: Trimmed user object: {id, display_name, user_principal_name, mail, job_title}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_raw | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the trimmed return shape, the optional raw Graph payload behavior, and the authentication-checking nature of the call. It does not detail error behavior or rate limits, but for a simple read-only profile tool the disclosed behavior is reasonably complete.
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 tight and well-organized: purpose, secondary use, argument behavior, and return object are each covered in a few concise lines. There is no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.
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?
The tool is simple, has one optional parameter, and no output schema; the description fully compensates by enumerating the exact return fields and explaining the raw payload option. An agent has enough information to call the tool and interpret its result without ambiguity.
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 only parameter, include_raw, is explained meaningfully: 'when True, include the raw Graph payload under raw.' The schema only provides a title and default, so this description adds the actual behavior an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.
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 action and resource: 'Return the signed-in user's profile.' It also adds the secondary use as an authentication smoke test, which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable. None of the sibling tools overlap with profile retrieval, so it is clearly differentiated.
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 gives clear context by positioning the tool as 'a smoke test that authentication is working,' which tells the agent when it is appropriate to call it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but no sibling tool serves the same purpose, so explicit exclusions are unnecessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.