Identify the currently authenticated user in ZenML to confirm who is active and ensure correct access context for pipeline operations.
Get the currently active user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +trueOutput schema / propertiesRemoved value: -{
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
-}Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "result"
-]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"get_active_userOutput"New value: +"get_active_userDictOutput"v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get', which implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose what happens if no user is active, error handling, or any side effects. The output schema exists but is not referenced in the description, so the agent is left to infer behavior beyond the basic action.
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?
The description is a single, short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning. This is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists (providing return value structure), and the description clearly states the purpose, it is largely complete. It doesn't elaborate on edge cases or the meaning of 'active' in context, but these are minor gaps for such a simple getter. The description adequately covers what an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 has zero parameters, and the schema reflects that with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0 parameters since there is nothing for the description to add. The description is consistent with the schema, providing no additional parameter information needed.
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 identifies the action (get) and the resource (active user). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_active_project, which targets a different resource. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it misses a point for proactive differentiation.
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 implies that this tool is used when you need the currently active user, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_active_project) or any conditions. It provides no explicit exclusions or context, falling into the 'implied usage' category.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.