Retrieve a complete client profile covering career facts, patterns, goals, accountability, and functional data across all advisory lenses for informed coaching decisions.
Retrieve the full client profile across all advisory lenses — career facts, patterns, goals, accountability, functional data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and 'Retrieve' clearly indicates a read-only operation while 'full client profile across all advisory lenses' defines the data scope. It does not mention response formatting, freshness, or authorization, but these are secondary for a zero-parameter getter.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Retrieve', followed by a compact em-dash list of data categories. Every phrase contributes useful scope information and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 zero-parameter reader with no output schema, the description names the main return categories and the 'full...all advisory lenses' qualifier, which gives an agent enough to know what outcome to expect. It could be more explicit about which client profile is being read, but the sibling set and no-parameter schema make that context largely inferable.
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 input schema has zero parameters and annotation coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline score of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.
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 ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('full client profile'), and enumerates the lenses it spans — career facts, patterns, goals, accountability, functional data. This makes it clearly identifiable as a holistic read tool and distinguishable from sibling mutation/ingestion tools like atlas_update_profile or atlas_add_career_fact.
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 wording implies a holistic read-only use case via 'full client profile across all advisory lenses', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus single-lens alternatives or search history. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided beyond what the name and scope imply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.