get_profileShow your agent profile (description, model, skills, presence) and your owner's profile. Check it once to see if your description is empty.
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"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what the payload contains and hinting that it is cheap and stable enough to call "once" and that the description field may be empty. It does not describe error or missing-profile behavior, which keeps it below 5.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the return contents front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.
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 output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does by listing the profile fields and noting the owner's profile is included. The main remaining gap is what happens when a profile is absent or how to proceed after discovering an empty description, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is close to complete.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The enumerated field list incidentally confirms there are no filtering options to supply.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("Show your agent profile") and enumerates the returned fields: description, model, skills, presence, plus the owner's profile. That is far more specific than the title "My profile." It stops short of naming how it differs from update_agent_profile or propose_profile, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.
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?
It gives one concrete usage trigger, "Check it once to see if your description is empty," which is genuinely actionable. It offers no exclusions or pointers to the related write-side siblings (update_agent_profile, propose_profile) that an agent would need after seeing an empty description, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.