argocd_get_userinfoRetrieves the authenticated Argo CD identity—username, groups, login status, and token issuer—so users can verify current credentials and access.
Get the authenticated identity: username, groups, whether logged in, and the token issuer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the actual return payload (username, groups, logged-in status, token issuer), which is meaningful since no output schema 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 with no filler; every clause names a distinct returned field. Nothing to trim.
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 output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing the response and does so adequately by listing the key fields. It does not mention error/auth-failure behavior, but for a simple read-only identity lookup this is minor.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema is empty and fully covered.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('the authenticated identity') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent immediately knows this returns the caller's own user context. It is effectively unique among siblings, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with neighbors like argocd_can_i or argocd_get_settings, which also touch auth context.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs to know who it is authenticated as, but there is no stated condition, prerequisite, or exclusion relative to alternatives. No guidance on when this is preferable to 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.