public_profileRead one opt-in public UsageMax profile and aggregate statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | The public profile handle, without the @ prefix. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / handle / descriptionAdded value: +"The public profile handle, without the @ prefix."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by disclosing the 'opt-in public' access constraint and noting that the result includes aggregate statistics. This clarifies privacy/availability expectations without contradicting the annotations.
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 one compact, front-loaded sentence. It communicates the resource, access constraint, and result type without any filler or redundant restatement of the title.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with full schema documentation, safety annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the essential access constraint ('opt-in public') and the general response shape ('aggregate statistics'), so an agent has what it needs to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The input schema fully describes the only parameter, including the '@ prefix' requirement, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The description adds no new meaning about handle, but schema coverage is 100%, matching the baseline expectation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), a named resource ('UsageMax profile'), and key qualifiers ('one', 'opt-in public'), making the operation clear. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like leaderboard or network_stats, but the singular and public scope is enough to identify the core purpose.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus its siblings, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The sentence states what the tool does but not the selection criteria an agent would need to choose it confidently over ask_site, leaderboard, or network_stats.
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.