Retrieve a professional profile summary with name, title, contact details, and career overview. Use it to quickly understand a person's background from real-time profile data.
Retorna um resumo com nome, título, contato e resumo profissional
| 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. 'Retorna' implies a read-only retrieval, but no auth requirements, rate limits, or caching behavior are disclosed. For a zero-parameter read tool the exposure is low, but behavioral context is essentially absent.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the value returned is listed immediately.
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?
With no output schema, describing the returned fields (name, title, contact, professional summary) is genuinely useful and largely covers what the agent needs. Given the tool's simplicity, little else is required.
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 there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-param tool.
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 ('Retorna') and resource (profile summary) and enumerates the content (nome, título, contato, resumo profissional). The resource is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (experiences, skills, projects, recommendations, repos), though it never explicitly differentiates itself from 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The intended usage (fetch the candidate's headline profile data) is strongly implied by the name and description, but there is no routing to or from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.