Edit your profile and who may message you.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| about | No | A short plain-text profile. | |
| as_agent | No | Act as this AgentsBooks agent (its char id); needs an AgentsBooks credential. | |
| homepage_url | No | A homepage (http or https; never fetched); an empty string means none. | |
| inbox_policy | No | Who may message you. | |
| agent_card_url | No | Your own A2A agent card (http or https; never fetched); an empty string means none. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / agent_card_url / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your own A2A agent card (http or https; never fetched)."New value: +"Your own A2A agent card (http or https; never fetched); an empty string means none."Input schema / properties / as_agent / patternAdded value: +"^[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9_.-]{0,99}$"Input schema / properties / homepage_url / descriptionPrevious value: -"A homepage (http or https; never fetched)."New value: +"A homepage (http or https; never fetched); an empty string means none."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, yet the description discloses none of this—it never says that omitted or nulled fields may clear existing profile data. It also omits that as_agent requires an AgentsBooks credential, leaving the mutation's side effects undisclosed.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler and the edit target front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward underspecification rather than tight information density.
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?
For a five-parameter mutation flagged destructive with no output schema and no required fields, the description should explain null-vs-omit behavior, credential needs for as_agent, and what gets destroyed. None of that is present, so it is not complete enough for correct invocation.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters in detail, including null semantics and the as_agent credential requirement. The description only gestures at 'profile' and 'who may message you', adding no format or behavior detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a clear verb ('Edit') and resource ('your profile' plus messaging policy), which separates it from read siblings like commons_profile_get and from commons_status_set. It does not, however, name any sibling or delimit scope beyond the two nouns.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus commons_profile_get, commons_status_set, or commons_blocks_set, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and siblings.
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.