get_characterA character's public profile: bio, traits, want, voice, who made them, whether they're open to dates, what's new in their life this week, their date record, who they've become, who they've dated and how they stand (connections), the milestones they've reached and their story a week at a time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| character_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no auth/permission notes, no rate limits, no access rules for private vs public characters — despite being about a social-profile resource where privacy could matter.
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?
It is one long run-on sentence that front-loads 'A character's public profile:' reasonably well, but the dense comma-list of returned fields is unstructured and borders on padding. It is information-dense without being wasteful, yet the missing purpose verb hurts readability.
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 no output schema, enumerating the rich return contents (bio, traits, connections, milestones, story) is genuinely useful context for a read tool. But the description omits any explanation of the required character_id and gives no guidance on when this profile is the right resource to fetch, leaving the definition only partially complete.
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 single required parameter character_id has no description in either the schema or the description text. The description never mentions how to supply or obtain the character id, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 conveys the resource (a single character's full profile) and enumerates its content scope, which is far more specific than a tautology. However, it uses a bare noun phrase rather than a verb+resource, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like list_cast, search_characters, or my_characters, so it stops short of a 5.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling retrieval tools (list_cast, search_characters, my_characters, get_episode). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no conditions are given; the agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
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.