Get extended profile 'about' info by screen name.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"userName": "<userName>"
},
"name": "get_user_about"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userName | Yes | Screen name without @ |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
No schema history has been recorded yet.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the target is the 'extended ... about' portion of the profile, without saying what that section contains, whether it can be empty, or how missing or suspended users behave. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is easy to scan. The phrasing 'extended profile "about" info' is slightly awkward with nested quotes but remains understandable.
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?
The tool is simple (one required parameter), but there is no output schema and the description never indicates what the 'about' payload contains, so an agent cannot anticipate the return shape. Mostly adequate given the tool's low complexity, with a clear gap on expected output.
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 single parameter already documents 'Screen name without @'; the description's 'by screen name' merely restates it. No additional format, casing, or error semantics are added, 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('extended profile "about" info') with the lookup key ('by screen name'). It is clear enough on its own, but it never contrasts itself with the obvious sibling get_user_info, so an agent must guess whether 'about' is a superset of, or a distinct section from, basic user info.
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?
Usage is only implied: the word 'extended' hints that this complements a basic profile lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer that get_user_info is the shallow version and this one fetches the extra 'about' fields.
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.