Get a public user profile by user ID.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"user_id": "<user_id>"
},
"name": "get_user_profile"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | User UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the profile returned is 'public', so private fields are excluded. It says nothing about whether the call requires auth, what happens for an unknown or non-existent user ID, or rate limits.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient but verges on terse given that everything else must come from omitted context.
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 simple one-parameter read tool this covers the core operation. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not indicate what a profile contains or how unknown IDs are handled, leaving an agent without return-value expectations.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single user_id parameter is documented as a 'User UUID'. The description adds only the word 'public' as a qualifier on the target, which does not extend parameter meaning beyond the schema; 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 specific verb and resource ('Get a public user profile') plus the keying mechanism ('by user ID'), which implicitly separates it from get_my_profile and update_my_profile. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives. The phrase 'by user ID' plus 'public' hints at looking up another user's profile rather than your own, which is implied usage rather than stated guidance.
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.