Extract Facebook profile IDs from URLs to identify users for data retrieval and analysis.
Get profile id by url
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": "profile_id"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get's data, implying a read operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return value looks like (e.g., format, potential null cases). This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 extremely concise with just four words, front-loading the key action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse without any wasted text.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'profile id' means in this context, how it's derived from the URL, or what the return value includes (e.g., a string, object, or error cases). For a tool with no structured support, more detail is needed to guide effective use.
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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description implies the tool uses a URL as input contextually, but since no parameters are defined, this doesn't add or detract from the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully handles the parameter aspect.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('profile id'), specifying it operates 'by url'. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'profile_details_by_url' or 'profiles_details_by_id', which might offer similar or overlapping functionality, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'profile_details_by_url' and 'profiles_details_by_id', the description lacks any indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.