A2UI Atomic Catalog

save_profile

Idempotent

Update the signed-in reader's profile. Only the keys you pass change; pass null to clear one. Save what the reader TOLD you, never what you inferred from one article — a profile that drifts on every reading is worse than no profile, because they stop being able to predict what it will do.

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": "save_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`theme`	No	Reader's preferred UI theme. The Workspace saves this itself when its toggle is clicked — you would not normally set this from a chat turn.
`domains`	No	Areas of interest the apply lens transfers into, e.g. ["a2ui","generative ui"].
`concerns`	No	Standing things they always want pushed on, in their own words.
`default_lens`	No	Opening posture when the reader does not name one: explain \| apply \| challenge \| situate.
`display_name`	No	What to call them in a rendered surface. Set this so a UI never has to show their email — the address is an identifier, not a greeting, and a shared screen should not leak it.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Guidance for the caller.
`saved`	No	True when the profile changed.
`reason`	No	Why nothing was saved or the store is unavailable.
`profile`	No	The profile after the update.
`available`	Yes	False when there is no signed-in reader or the store failed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write; the description adds the crucial PATCH semantics ('only the keys you pass change') and the clearing rule ('pass null to clear one'), which the schema does not encode. It also discloses the intended write policy — a durable profile must not drift on every reading — which is genuine behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three short front-loaded sentences: what it does, how partial updates work, then the curation policy. The final clause about predictability is motivational rather than strictly operational, but it justifies the policy that follows and is brief enough to keep.

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 five-parameter partial-update tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and an output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: merge semantics, null-clearing, and what content belongs in the profile. It does not restate the per-field meanings or return shape, which is appropriate, though a hint about scoping to the signed-in reader's auth would complete it.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by explaining the merge/clear contract that governs all five parameters and is not stated in the schema (the schema types do not even permit null). The per-field guidance itself is already in the schema, so it does not need repeating.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Update the signed-in reader's profile', so an agent immediately knows this is a write to the current reader's stored preferences. It is distinguishable from a read tool such as get_profile by the verb alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives a concrete rule for when to call it ('save what the reader TOLD you') and an explicit exclusion ('never what you inferred from one article'), which is exactly the judgment an agent needs. It stops short of naming alternatives, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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

All A2UI Atomic Catalog tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.