get_operator_profileRetrieve the human operator's working context: role, domain expertise, communication preferences, quality bar, trusted/distrusted sources. Returns the latest version of the profile. Defaults to the operator linked to the calling agent's passport.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operator_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns the latest version of the profile and defaults to the operator linked to the calling agent's passport. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'Retrieve' implies it, and the versioning detail adds useful behavioral context.
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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then add key details. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what is retrieved, specific content fields, versioning, and default behavior. No significant gaps for a read-only profile getter.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the default operator resolution ('Defaults to the operator linked to the calling agent's passport'), which implicitly clarifies the optional operator_id parameter's role in overriding the default. However, it doesn't explicitly describe the parameter's effect when provided.
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 the verb ('Retrieve') and specific resource ('the human operator's working context') with enumerated details (role, domain expertise, communication preferences, quality bar, trusted/distrusted sources). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_passport by focusing on the operator profile, not the agent passport.
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 usage by stating what it retrieves, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_passport, update_operator_profile). It provides a default behavior nuance but lacks explicit exclusion criteria or alternative tool references.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: check_claim and memory_claim_check are the same function with different tiers, get_freshness_report and memory_freshness_report are duplicates, get_correction_chain and compare_versions both trace history, and investigate_question subsumes many other retrieval tools. This will cause agent misselection.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_constraints, declare_constraint, sync_pull, etc.). Exceptions like memory_claim_check, memory_freshness_report, session_debrief, and verify_before_acting deviate but are relatively few. Overall the naming is readable and mostly predictable.
75 tools is excessive for a memory server. Many are highly niche or direct duplicates (e.g., paid/free versions of the same function). The count far exceeds typical well-scoped servers and introduces cognitive overhead without proportional value.
The server covers a wide array of memory, constraint, decision, skill, and sync operations, which is impressive. However, there are notable gaps: no direct delete or edit for memory facts (only corrections/versioning), and no bulk enumeration of all stored items. The redundancy in retrieval tools also suggests an incomplete design.