set_business_profileTell me about your business. I'll save your profile and use it to find matching government contracts. Hosted: sign-in required; no paid subscription needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| location | No | Where you're located (e.g., 'Edmonton, Alberta') | |
| description | Yes | What does your business do? Describe your products, services, and capabilities. | |
| company_name | No | Your company name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about hosting, sign-in, and no paid subscription, but it does not disclose what gets overwritten or destroyed when saving a profile.
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?
Three short sentences front-load the purpose and include an important prerequisite. The opening 'Tell me about your business' is slightly conversational, but overall the description is efficiently sized.
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 simple three-parameter schema and existing annotations, the description is mostly complete for a save operation. However, it omits the important destructive behavior of overwriting or replacing an existing profile, which is signaled by destructiveHint=true.
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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax, constraints, or format details beyond the schema baseline.
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 names a specific action ('save your profile') and resource ('business profile'), and explains its downstream purpose ('find matching government contracts'). It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_my_profile.
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?
Usage is implied by the instruction 'Tell me about your business' and the sign-in prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives like get_my_profile. The agent must infer that this is the setup/update tool.
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.