dp_commercial_get_security_profileExplain project isolation, scopes, approvals, token revocation, and audit controls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | Yes | ||
| error | Yes | ||
| links | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| nextAction | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {},
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {},
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "evidence": {
+ "items": {},
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "links": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "nextAction": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "version": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok",
+ "data",
+ "error",
+ "nextAction",
+ "links",
+ "evidence",
+ "version"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the explanatory nature of the tool and the topics it covers, but does not disclose details like response shape or whether it returns live configuration versus general documentation. No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentence that front-loads the resource and lists the key content areas with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given that output schema exists and there are no parameters, the description covers the main subject matter adequately. It could improve by indicating how this profile relates to other profiles, but the listed topics give enough context for an agent to understand what the tool provides.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so parameter documentation is essentially moot. The baseline for no-parameter tools applies, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details.
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 resource (security profile) and lists concrete topics: project isolation, scopes, approvals, token revocation, and audit controls. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_company_profile or get_data_processing_profile, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with them.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_data_processing_profile or get_company_profile. The context is implied to be informational/security-related, but no explicit exclusions or routing cues are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.