get_profileGet the user's profile: name, username, email, whether a password is set, email-subscription state, notification categories and plan.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_profile"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful disclosure of what profile information is returned, including password-set state and subscription/notification details, but it does not discuss permissions, privacy sensitivity, or return format.
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 single front-loaded sentence that states the action and enumerates the returned fields. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized.
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 no-parameter, read-only profile getter with rich annotations, the description gives enough detail about returned fields to support correct invocation. With no output schema, it could be slightly more complete about field types or formats, but the core information is present.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The baseline score for a no-parameter tool 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get the user's profile') and enumerates the profile fields returned, so the tool's purpose is immediately clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from adjacent sibling getters such as billing_status, get_quota_status, list_plans, or list_notifications.
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 provides no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. An agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the correct way to retrieve the current user's profile rather than using one of the many sibling status or list tools.
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.