CueFrame

Get Profile

get_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

The org's legible taste in ONE read: brand kits, registered critics (the machine-checkable standard both the Director's gates and score_composition enforce), their reference media (presigned thumbnails), the recent checkpoint-decision log, and the learned taste (style preferences saved with remember_taste). Read this BEFORE composing for an org you haven't worked with — it is the house style. Learned taste is advice: the current request, brief, project, brand kit, exclusions and critics take precedence; name any conflict.

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": "get_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`taste`	No	Learned style preferences. Advice only: the current request, its brief, the project and the brand kit, exclusions and critics all take precedence.
`critics`	No	Registered critics — run in the Director's gates AND score_composition.
`brandKits`	No	The org's brand kits (bind one to a project via update_project). `audio` carries the brand sound kit when set.
`references`	No	The union of critic reference media — the org's visual standard, with provenance.
`recentDecisions`	No	The last recorded checkpoint decisions — the raw log learned taste is saved from.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / recentDecisions / description

Previous value: -"The last recorded checkpoint decisions — the raw taste log phase 2 will distill."New value: +"The last recorded checkpoint decisions — the raw log learned taste is saved from."

addedOutput schema / properties / taste

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Learned style preferences. Advice only: the current request, its brief, the project and the brand kit, exclusions and critics all take precedence.",
+  "items": {},
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedOct 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint already covering safety, the description adds useful behavior: presigned thumbnails, a recent checkpoint-decision log, and the precedence rule for learned taste versus current request/brief/project/brand kit/critics. It stops short of mentioning auth context or presigned URL expiration, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

The main content is front-loaded and every clause contributes to telling the agent what is inside the profile and how to treat it. The first sentence is dense and relies on domain jargon, which keeps it from being maximally concise, but it is appropriately sized for a multi-part read tool.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description need not document return shapes, and it otherwise covers the key context: what the profile contains, when to consult it, and how to resolve conflicts between learned taste and current instructions. An agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4.

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 the resource (the org's profile/taste) and enumerates exactly what comes back: brand kits, critics, reference media, checkpoint log, and learned taste. It also distinguishes this as a consolidated 'ONE read' rather than a generic list or account fetch.

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 clear trigger: read this BEFORE composing for an unfamiliar org, and explains that it is the house style. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or route to a specific alternative, but the 'ONE read' framing implies it replaces multiple narrower reads.

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

All CueFrame 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.