Get the full public profile of a single GigNGo worker by their profile slug. Returns display name, bio, skills, per-skill rates, rating, review count, badges, service area, availability, and a shareable profile URL. Slugs come from search_local_workers results (the "slug" field) or from gigngo.org/worker-profile/{slug} URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The worker's profile slug, e.g. "john-smith-handyman-orlando". |
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 burden. It discloses that the profile is public and the operation is a read-only 'get', and it lists the return fields. It could additionally mention invalid-slug or not-found behavior, but for a simple public-profile lookup the transparency is adequate.
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?
Three focused sentences: purpose first, return contents second, parameter provenance last. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name, and each sentence adds genuinely useful information.
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 lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what the tool does, what it returns, and how to obtain a valid slug. No critical information needed for correct invocation is missing.
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 schema already documents the slug parameter fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable guidance by specifying where slugs originate and giving the URL pattern, which helps the agent construct a valid call beyond the schema alone.
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 and resource: 'Get the full public profile of a single GigNGo worker by their profile slug.' It is clearly distinct from siblings like search_local_workers, which is a search/browse operation, and it enumerates the profile fields to remove ambiguity.
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 explicitly tells the agent where slugs come from—search_local_workers results or gigngo.org profile URLs—which implies this tool is the detail-lookup step after a search. It does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives, but the read-by-slug vs. browse/search distinction is clear from context.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action: browsing tasks, searching workers, viewing a single profile, checking availability, measuring demand density, listing categories, and getting platform info. The only close pair is check_service_availability vs search_local_workers, but one gives aggregate counts by category while the other returns detailed worker profiles, so they remain clearly separated.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: browse_open_tasks, check_service_availability, get_worker_profile, list_service_categories, search_local_workers. The verbs vary naturally by action but the structure is uniform and predictable.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a local services marketplace discovery server. Each tool covers an essential need: categories, platform info, task browsing, worker search, profile details, availability, and demand density, with no redundant or filler tools.
The read-only discovery workflow is well covered: list categories, check availability, search workers, view profiles, browse tasks, and assess demand density. There is no tool to post a task or apply to one, but the tool descriptions suggest this server is designed for exploration and lookup rather than full marketplace transactions.