[FREE] Get the full profile of a specific AgentWorld NPC agent. Returns: soul backstory, life goals, current mood, memory count, wallet, balance, city, job, reputation score, trade history summary, and business ownership. Use list_agents() first to find agent names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the tool returns profile data and notes that it is free, but it does not describe error behavior, data freshness, read-only guarantees, or any side effects beyond the implied safe read operation.
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 compact, front-loaded with the core operation, and every sentence earns its place. The field list is useful despite the output schema because it gives immediate expectations, and the list_agents instruction is a valuable closing directive.
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 single-parameter read-only profile tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states what is retrieved, lists the key returned data, and gives the prerequisite discovery step. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the sole parameter. It does so by defining agent_name as a specific AgentWorld NPC agent and pointing to list_agents() for valid names. It stops short of specifying exact formatting, case sensitivity, or naming conventions, but it provides enough semantic grounding.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Get the full profile of a specific AgentWorld NPC agent." It enumerates the returned fields, which makes the tool's scope concrete and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agent_credit_score or get_agent_attestations that cover narrower aspects of an agent.
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 description gives clear usage context by instructing the agent to call list_agents() first to discover valid agent names. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this over specialized sibling tools, but the 'full profile' framing and the explicit prerequisite provide solid guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.