laravel-forge-mcp

Konto i organizacje

forge_whoami

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify the authenticated Forge user and list their organizations with slugs. Use this to determine which organization owns a resource.

Instructions

Pokazuje zalogowanego uzytkownika Forge oraz liste jego organizacji wraz z ich slugami. Zacznij od tego narzedzia, gdy nie wiesz, do ktorej organizacji nalezy zasob.

Tool call template

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": "forge_whoami"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds return-content context but no additional behavioral details such as auth requirements or response format, which is acceptable 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two short sentences, front-loads the tool's primary behavior, and adds a practical usage pointer. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, parameterless identity/context tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what is returned, that it includes slugs, and when to invoke it. The rich annotations and absence of parameters make this sufficiently 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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no input semantics left ambiguous. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description's mention of organizations and slugs is output context rather than parameter detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource: it shows the logged-in Forge user and their organizations with slugs. This is not a tautology and immediately distinguishes the tool from resource-specific siblings like forge_list_sites or forge_list_servers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to start with this tool when unsure which organization owns a resource, giving a clear when-to-use trigger. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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