get_api_v1_profile_similarGet similar profiles for a given profile using its URN. Group: Profile. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
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_api_v1_profile_similar"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urn | No |
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 must carry the behavioral burden. It communicates billing cost ('Billing per call: 1 Credits') and the read-only nature of 'Get', but it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or any rate limiting. This is adequate for a simple look-up but leaves gaps.
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?
The description is three short sentences and every part earns its place: the action, the group, and the billing cost. There is no fluff or redundant repetition of the tool name.
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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it does and the billing cost. However, it does not describe what the returned 'similar profiles' look like (e.g., profile URNs, full profile objects) or any limitations, so completeness is adequate but not thorough.
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?
There is only one parameter, urn, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that the URN belongs to the profile whose similar profiles should be fetched. The schema provides an example, and together they make the parameter's meaning clear.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get similar profiles for a given profile using its URN.' It clearly describes the input and the action, and the Group: Profile line helps distinguish it from company/job/service similar siblings.
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?
The description makes the core usage clear: call it when you need similar profiles for a given profile URN. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many profile sub-tools, so some usage guidance is implied rather than stated.
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.