Chama a Wise API /v2/profiles e retorna todos os profiles que o Personal Token enxerga (PERSONAL/BUSINESS). Use pra confirmar o profile_id antes de outras tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns PERSONAL/BUSINESS types and is for confirming profile_id, but does not disclose additional behaviors like response format or pagination.
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 succinct sentences with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the API call and purpose, then usage instruction.
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 no output schema, the description lacks return value details. Parameter is unexplained. However, the tool is simple and the description covers the main purpose. Sibling tools provide context but the definition itself is incomplete for full autonomous use.
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 has one parameter ('account') with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention this parameter at all. No meaning is added beyond 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 it calls /v2/profiles and returns all profiles (PERSONAL/BUSINESS) visible to the Personal Token. Although it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the purpose is specific and actionable.
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?
Explicitly tells the agent to use it 'to confirm the profile_id before other tools', providing a clear usage context. Does not include when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the guidance is direct and helpful.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose. The six general MCP platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) are separate from the six Wise-specific query tools (wise_get_balance_statement, wise_list_profiles, etc.). No two tools overlap in functionality.
The Wise-specific tools consistently follow the pattern 'wise_verb_noun' (e.g., wise_get_balance_statement, wise_list_profiles). The general tools use short descriptive names without a prefix, which is a minor inconsistency, but the grouping is logical and readable.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped. It provides sufficient coverage for both the MCP platform utilities and the Wise financial data integration without being bloated or sparse.
The tool set covers the core read operations for Wise (profiles, balances, transactions, card events, activities) and the essential MCP platform functions. Missing are write operations like creating transfers, but the server's focus appears to be data retrieval, so this is a minor gap.