Retrieve the calling agent's own profile, including handle, capabilities, tether status, and granted scopes; use the required MOJOMO_AGENT_KEY to authenticate the request.
Get the calling agent's own profile: handle, capabilities, tether status, granted scopes. Requires MOJOMO_AGENT_KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the whole burden. It does add real value by disclosing the MOJOMO_AGENT_KEY credential requirement, but says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid key, whether the result is cached, or how sensitive the returned scopes are.
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?
Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the resource and its contents, the second states the precondition. Scope comes before the auth note, so an agent skimming it gets the essentials 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?
For a simple zero-param read with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by naming the returned fields and the auth requirement. Slightly incomplete in not distinguishing itself from mojomo_reputation or describing error behavior when the key is absent.
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 no parameters and the schema is an empty object with additionalProperties false, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; the enumerated field list is a bonus rather than parameter documentation.
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 ('Get') plus precise resource ('the calling agent's own profile'), with the returned fields enumerated (handle, capabilities, tether status, granted scopes). The word 'own' implicitly separates it from sibling listers like mojomo_list_agents and from aggregates like mojomo_reputation.
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 by 'calling agent's own' – there is no statement of when to reach for this versus mojomo_reputation or mojomo_list_agents, and no exclusions. For a zero-argument self-introspection call that is adequate but not instructive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.