get_v2_profile_detailsv2 / Profile Details Group: v2 / 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_v2_profile_details"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | No | Username |
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 burden for behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral fact disclosed is 'Billing per call: 1 Credits,' which is useful but insufficient. The description does not explicitly say this is a read operation, mention authentication needs, describe output shape, or note any limitations.
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 short but under-specified. It repeats the title and group rather than providing meaningful substance. 'Billing per call' earns its place, but the rest is redundant filler, so the structure does not satisfy the intent of concise, useful documentation.
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?
The tool has low complexity (one parameter) and full schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema. The description still needs to state what details are returned and how this differs from existing sibling tools. With only a billing note and a tautological title, the context is incomplete for informed selection and 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 description coverage is 100%: the single 'username' parameter has a description and example. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema, but because the schema already fully documents it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 merely restates the tool name and title ('v2 / Profile Details') and adds a grouping label. It never states what the tool actually does with a verb and resource. This is a tautology, not a purpose statement, and it does not differentiate from get_v1_profile_details or get_v2_profile_feed.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings like get_v1_profile_details or get_v2_profile_feed. The 'Group: v2 / Profile' label gives a category but no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This is a clear absence of usage 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.