Retrieve a VRChat avatar's profile by its avatar ID. Returns read-only details of the avatar, with optional field and compactness filters.
Get an avatar profile by avatarId (read-only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | ||
| compact | No | ||
| avatarId | Yes | ||
| maxArrayLength | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stale | Yes | ||
| avatar | Yes | ||
| avatarId | Yes | ||
| vrcxMemo | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.13Output schema / properties / vrcxMemo / properties / editedAt / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Output schema / properties / vrcxMemo / properties / editedAt / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / properties / vrcxMemo / properties / memo / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Output schema / properties / vrcxMemo / properties / memo / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, and the description merely repeats 'read-only' without adding new behavioral context such as auth requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or side effects. It does not contradict the annotation.
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 with the action and target front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundant elaboration, making it well-structured for quick parsing.
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 read-only getter with an output schema, the core operation is covered. However, optional parameters are undocumented and no alternative tools are mentioned, so an agent would need to rely on schema inference and sibling-tool names to fully understand selection and invocation behavior.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters, the description should compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It only clarifies that avatarId is the lookup key, while fields, compact, and maxArrayLength are left entirely to inference from their names.
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'), the resource ('avatar profile'), and the lookup key ('avatarId'). It is specific enough to be distinguished from sibling user/world profile tools, though it does not explicitly contrast them.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like vrchat_user_profile, vrchat_world_profile, or vrchat_avatar_update. The read-only marker describes a property of the operation, not a use case or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.