Displays the master candidate profile, shows where it is stored, checks whether it meets the standard schema, and lists details still pending confirmation.
Muestra el perfil maestro, dónde está, si cumple el esquema estándar y qué queda pendiente de confirmar.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; "Muestra" signals a read-only operation and it discloses that the response is diagnostic (ubicación, cumplimiento de esquema, pendientes). It does not say what happens when no master profile has been built yet, nor whether anything is mutated or cached.
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 filler, listing the three outputs compactly. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose, which is the correct failure mode here.
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 params and no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it names three components (ubicación, cumplimiento del esquema estándar, pendientes). Missing only edge-case behavior (no profile present) and the form of the report.
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 is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline for a no-param tool applies. Schema coverage is 100% and trivially complete.
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?
Specific verb ("Muestra") plus resource ("perfil maestro") and it enumerates the three things returned: location, standard-schema compliance, and pending confirmations. It does not differentiate itself from near-siblings like ver-mi-perfil or comparar-perfil, so an agent must guess which viewer to pick.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as construir-perfil-maestro (when none exists) or actualizar-perfil (when something is pending). The read-only intent is only implied by "Muestra".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.