get_current_keyIdentify whether an API key is an organization or project key by retrieving the key's name, last four characters, and associated project.
The organization, API key (name and last 4 characters, never the key) and project this server acts as. Call it first when you are unsure whether the key is an organization key or a project key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that the full API key is never returned, only its name and last 4 characters—a security-relevant guarantee beyond the annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the resource and output details, and the second gives a direct usage directive.
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 and no output schema, the description still explains what will be returned and when to call it. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.
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?
This tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate.
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 clearly states that the tool returns the current server's identity context: organization, API key name/last 4 characters, and project. This aligns with the title 'Who am I' and distinguishes it from account/group/chat-oriented sibling tools.
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 explicitly says to call it first when unsure whether the current key is an organization key or a project key. It provides a clear usage trigger but does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, 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.