Get user profile. Public profile of a user by screen name.
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": {
"userName": "<userName>"
},
"name": "x_user_info"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userName | Yes | Screen name without the @, e.g. `NASA`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only reveals that the returned data is a public profile. It says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior for nonexistent or suspended accounts, or what the response contains.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The second sentence largely rephrases the first with a scope qualifier ("public", "by screen name"), which is mildly redundant but adds the lookup key.
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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. However, it leaves the agent guessing about what fields come back and how failures are signaled, which matters when several sibling profile tools exist.
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 parameter already documents the screen-name format with an example. The description's "by screen name" merely restates 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?
The description names a specific verb and resource ("Get user profile") and narrows it to a single public profile looked up by screen name, which distinguishes it from aggregate siblings like x_user_followers or x_user_last_tweets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as x_user_about or x_user_batch_info_by_ids, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when a different sibling (e.g. batch lookup by IDs or the 'about' variant) is preferable, and no stated preconditions. Usage is only implied by the phrase "by screen name".
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.