List every client with a profile and the date its profile was last run. This helps review which clients have profiles and when they were last updated.
List every client that has a profile, with the date of its last profile run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only clients with profiles are returned and that the last profile run date is included, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or volume.
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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and packs the scope and returned field without waste.
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 list tool with full annotation coverage, the description conveys what is listed and what each entry contains. With no output schema, it would benefit from a note on return size or sort order, but it is close to complete.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the calibration the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify and the description introduces none that conflict.
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 verb (List) and resource (clients) plus a scope condition — only clients that have a profile — and indicates the returned field (date of last profile run). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, though the resource noun 'clients' already separates it from list_runs.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_profile or list_runs, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The scope condition (clients with a profile) hints at usage but is a data filter, not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.