argocd_get_userinfoRetrieves the authenticated identity, including username, groups, login status, and token issuer. Use it to verify access or troubleshoot permissions for an Argo CD session.
Get the authenticated identity: username, groups, whether logged in, and the token issuer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety and side-effect profile. The description adds useful specifics about what is returned (groups, token issuer, login state), which goes beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss auth requirements or failure modes.
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 that lists the key returned fields with zero filler. Every element 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?
With no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete; it explains what identity fields are returned. It could note auth prerequisites but is otherwise sufficient.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing to document, so the description need not compensate.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (authenticated identity) and enumerates the exact fields returned (username, groups, login state, token issuer). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like argocd_get_settings or argocd_can_i.
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 phrasing 'Get the authenticated identity' makes the when-to-use context clear: it is for identifying the calling user. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., versus argocd_can_i for permission checks).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.