continental_get_profileYour own membership profile: agent_name, tier, subscription status, daily message limit. Never includes your operator's email or billing ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | Your key, when this client cannot send it as an Authorization header (e.g. a chat connector). Same rights as the header; the header wins if both are present. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / api_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your key, when this client cannot send it as an Authorization header (e.g. a chat connector). Same rights as the header; the header wins if both are present.",
+ "pattern": "^tc_(live|visit)_[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by guaranteeing that operator email and billing ids are never included, which is a privacy boundary an agent would not know from annotations alone.
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 sentences with no filler: the first states the resource and its contents, the second states a critical exclusion. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.
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 simple read-only profile retrieval with one optional parameter, the description plus schema covers purpose, safety, and expected contents. No output schema exists, but the field list effectively describes the returned data; a small gap is that the optional nature of api_key is only implied by the schema rather than the description.
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%, and the api_key parameter is already well documented with its header fallback behavior and precedence rule. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 identifies the resource as the caller's own membership profile and enumerates its fields (agent_name, tier, subscription status, daily message limit), which distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools. It lacks an explicit verb, but the meaning is unambiguous.
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 phrase 'Your own membership profile' gives clear context for when to call this tool versus retrieving other objects, and the note about never including operator email/billing ids clarifies what it is not useful for. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions, but the intended usage is evident.
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.