portfolio_get_profileWho Marian Matinca is: career history (roles at Weco-Travel Romania), certifications and the measurable results of his projects. Same data as shown on mmatinca.eu.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Content language (all content exists in both en and ro) | en |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the data matches mmatinca.eu, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the core purpose without any fluff or redundant information.
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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description conveys the data returned and its equivalence to the external website. Minor gap: no explicit mention of the return format, but it is sufficient given the context.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the 'lang' parameter as 'Content language (all content exists in both en and ro)'. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 clearly states that the tool retrieves the professional profile of Marian Matinca: career history, certifications, and measurable results. It distinguishes from sibling tools focusing on blog posts, projects, or search.
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 implies the tool is for accessing profile data, but does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor list any exclusions or prerequisites.
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.
Each tool has a clear and distinct purpose: listing vs. getting details for blog posts and projects, retrieving the profile, and performing a cross-domain search. No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent portfolio_<verb>_<noun> pattern (e.g., portfolio_get_blog_post, portfolio_list_projects), using standard verbs and plural/singular nouns appropriately.
With 6 tools covering portfolio, blog posts, projects, and search, the set is well-scoped for a personal portfolio site—neither too few nor excessive.
The tool surface provides complete read-only access to all major parts of the portfolio: profile, blog posts (list+detail), projects (list+detail), and a full-text search. No obvious gaps exist for the intended use case.