Retrieve your current preferences without modifying language, notices, or message settings. Use it to review your saved configuration.
Lee preferencias propias; no cambia idioma, avisos ni configuración de mensajes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it does not change specific settings, but this is largely redundant with the read-only annotation. It provides minor additional context about the scope of preferences, but not substantial new behavioral disclosure.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes both what it does and what it does not do, with no wasted words. The structure is efficient and easily parses.
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 lacks an output schema and the 'name' parameter is unexplained. While the purpose is clear, an agent cannot correctly invoke it without knowing the parameter semantics or expected return format, leaving significant gaps for such a simple 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 has one optional 'name' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. There is no way for an agent to understand the purpose or effect of the parameter, making this a severe gap that the description fails to compensate for.
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 states an explicit verb 'Lee' (reads) and a clear resource 'preferencias propias' (own preferences), and adds negative scope by clarifying it does not change language, notifications, or message settings. This specificity distinguishes it from potential modification tools and siblings like get_my_profile.
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 implies use when reading own preferences and explicitly excludes modification of language, notifications, and message settings, which serves as negative usage guidance. It does not name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this for read-only preferences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.