profileProfile + characters + inventory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| components | Yes | ||
| membership_type | Yes | ||
| destiny_membership_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "components": "200,201,202,205",
+ "destiny_membership_id": "4611686018429783292",
+ "membership_type": 3
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Profile with characters and inventory response",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is clear. The description adds that the tool returns profile, characters, and inventory, which is helpful but doesn't disclose other behaviors like pagination 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 a short phrase rather than a proper sentence. While concise, it lacks structure and misses key information, making it underspecified rather than efficiently compact.
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?
With 3 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no explanation of the output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide enough context for proper 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three required parameters (components, membership_type, destiny_membership_id). This is a critical failure for agent invocation.
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 'Profile + characters + inventory' lists the resource types returned but lacks a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', making the purpose somewhat vague. It does distinguish from sibling 'character' by implying a broader scope.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'character' or 'clan'. No explicit when-not or usage context is provided.
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.