Fetch the authenticated MyAnimeList user's profile, including user details and optional anime statistics.
Fetch the authenticated MAL user's profile.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_user_profile"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the action and resource. It does not mention the optional 'fields' parameter behavior (e.g., that 'anime_statistics' includes anime stats), nor any details about the profile contents or potential errors. This is insufficient for confident invocation.
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?
The description is one short sentence, front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. It is maximally concise.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the return format or parameter effects; it does not. The single parameter is undocumented, and the description is too brief to be considered complete for a user-profile tool.
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 schema defines a single optional 'fields' parameter with a null default and an 'anime_statistics' option, but the description does not mention this parameter at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining the parameter's purpose or accepted values.
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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and specifies the resource as 'authenticated MAL user's profile', which clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on anime/manga lists. There is no other user-profile tool among siblings, so purpose is unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It does not mention authentication prerequisites or use cases beyond the basic fetch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.