eLabFTW MCP

get_current_user_capabilities

Fetch the current user's team roles, admin status, and management permissions, omitting sensitive fields, to detect access for eLabFTW actions.

Instructions

Return a sanitized subset of the current user's capabilities and team roles. Calls /users/me and returns only the fields relevant for capability detection: userid, fullname, current team id, team memberships (id, name, is_admin, is_owner, is_archived), is_sysadmin, can_manage_compounds and can_manage_inventory_locations. Sensitive fields (email, API keys, signatures, preferences) are deliberately omitted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the endpoint called, that the response is a 'sanitized subset', the exact set of team-membership fields exposed, and which sensitive fields (email, API keys, signatures, preferences) are deliberately omitted. It omits auth requirements and pagination/caching behavior, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and then the field-level detail. The field enumeration is long but is the substantive content rather than padding, so it earns its place; a minor trim is conceivable.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not fully explain return values, yet the field list usefully complements it by explaining what is intentionally excluded (sanitization), which the schema alone would not convey. For a no-argument, no-annotation read tool this is nearly complete.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent argument semantics, and instead documents the shape of what is retrieved.

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 verb and resource ('Return ... the current user's capabilities and team roles') and even cites the underlying endpoint /users/me, so the purpose is unmistakable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the adjacent sibling refresh_team_caps, which is the only thing keeping it off a 5.

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 implied only: the phrase 'relevant for capability detection' hints at when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to alternatives such as refresh_team_caps. No prerequisites or auth context are stated.

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