GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_user_me

Read-only

Retrieve the current authenticated GitFlic user's profile details—ID, username, email, name, and full name—to identify the active account or populate user-specific data.

Instructions

Get the current authenticated user (id, username, email, name, fullName).

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": "gitflic_user_me"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`raw`	No	Return the full, un-slimmed GitFlic response for THIS call (no token compression). Use when the default slim view dropped a field you need.
`fields`	No	Return only these top-level fields (plus id keys), narrowing the response further.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail of which fields come back, but says nothing about auth requirements (whether a token must be active) or what happens when no user is authenticated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the return fields in parentheses — no filler. It is appropriately sized for a two-optional-parameter read tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple authenticated-read tool with full schema coverage and a rich annotation set, the definition covers what an agent needs to call it correctly, and the field list substitutes reasonably for the absent output schema. Only the auth-prerequisite and unauthenticated-case behavior are missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (raw, fields) are documented in-schema with clear semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or interaction detail between the slim default view and the 'fields' narrowing option.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('the current authenticated user'), and enumerates the returned fields, which makes it distinguishable from gitflic_user_get (a lookup of some other user). It stops short of naming that sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the phrase 'current authenticated user' — an agent can infer this is the right call for identifying itself rather than fetching an arbitrary user. No explicit when-to-use framing, prerequisites, or named alternative (e.g. gitflic_user_get) is provided.

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

Deploy Server