Retrieve a recording profile by name to inspect every symbol's mode, cycle, triggers, and per-group cost estimate. Use it to review full profile details before running or editing a recording.
One profile in full: every symbol with its mode and cycle, triggers, per-group cost estimate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful content-shape context (modes, cycles, triggers, cost estimates), but says nothing about behavior such as failure when the profile name is unknown or whether the result is live or from the last recorded run.
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?
A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the resource. It is a verbless fragment, which is efficient but slightly less scannable than a full clause.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. However, with the sole parameter undocumented and no routing guidance against the profile siblings, the definition is only adequate for correct invocation.
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?
There is one parameter, 'name', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent must guess whether it is the profile name from rec_profile_list, a file path, or something else.
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?
States a specific resource ('one profile in full') and enumerates what comes back (symbols with mode and cycle, triggers, per-group cost estimate), which separates it from rec_profile_list (collection) and rec_profile_delete (mutation). It is clear what the tool does, though the verb 'get' is only implied by the name rather than stated.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you need the full detail of a single named profile rather than a listing. No alternative is named and no prerequisite (e.g., the profile must already exist from rec_profile_save) is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.