Skip to main content
Glama

get_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

One person by id, <slug>-<id> or handle: the parsed view and the OpenProfile.md as served.

Tool call template

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": {
      "ref": "<ref>"
    },
    "name": "get_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refYesProfile id, slug-id or handle, e.g. 4821, ada-lovelace-4821 or ada

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / ref / description
      Previous value: -"Profile id, slug-id or handle"New value: +"Profile id, slug-id or handle, e.g. 4821, ada-lovelace-4821 or ada"
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful return-content context by saying the response includes both the parsed view and the OpenProfile.md as served, though it does not describe error behavior or response structure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is a single compact sentence with the resource and identifier formats front-loaded. It is efficient, though the phrase 'the parsed view and the OpenProfile.md as served' is somewhat cryptic.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with rich annotations and a fully documented single parameter, this is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema, and the description only vaguely characterizes the return as a parsed view and OpenProfile.md rather than explaining what that contains.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the `ref` parameter with three examples. The description repeats the accepted id, slug-id, and handle forms without adding format constraints or semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the tool as retrieving one person by exact reference and names the accepted identifier forms (id, slug-id, handle). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from search_profiles or find_profile_by_linkedin, but the singular-resource scope is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The accepted identifier forms imply this is for exact lookups rather than searches, but the description never states when to prefer it over search_profiles, find_profile_by_linkedin, or claim_profile. Usage guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.