GET /profile — Get your own profile
Returns your own full profile — every field the in-app profile editor surfaces to you, plus tier-derived state. Same shape regardless of tier (DC and DC BLACK members get identical own-profile payloads). Use PATCH /profile to update editable fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the return shape (full profile, identical across tiers), and that it includes tier-derived state. Since no annotations are provided, the description adequately covers behavioral aspects, though it omits authentication requirements or rate limits.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences plus a code reference. It front-loads the HTTP method and purpose, and 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?
Without an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (full profile, same shape regardless of tier, includes editor fields and tier-derived state). It also guides users to the update tool, making it complete for this read-only endpoint.
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?
There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Thus, the description does not need to add parameter info. A score of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 tool retrieves the user's own profile via GET /profile, specifying it returns every field from the profile editor plus tier-derived state. It distinguishes itself from the PATCH /profile update tool.
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?
It explicitly states when to use: to get your own profile, and mentions the PATCH /profile tool for updates. However, it does not address when not to use it, such as needing another user's profile, though the context of 'your own profile' implies that limitation.
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.
Despite the large number of tools, each has a detailed description that clearly distinguishes its purpose. Minor potential overlaps (e.g., search vs. resource-specific search, own vs. other's agenda) are well documented, so an agent can differentiate them.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun or resource_subresource_action pattern in snake_case. A few tools are just nouns (e.g., 'alerts', 'announcements'), but these are top-level listing endpoints; overall the naming is predictable.
85 tools is very high for a single server, making it difficult for an agent to efficiently explore and select the right tool. While each tool seems justified for the broad domain, the count feels overwhelming and could be streamlined.
The tool surface covers most major areas (events, trips, chapters, rooms, search, profile, etc.) with CRUD or lifecycle operations. However, the lack of a 'send message' tool for rooms is a notable gap, and some resources (e.g., events) are read-only on creation/update, limiting agent workflows.
