get_profileRetrieve the authenticated user's profile details: email, display name, avatar URL, premium status, and account creation date.
Return the authenticated user's profile: email, displayName, avatarUrl, isPremium, and account createdAt epoch.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context (authenticated scope and returned fields) but does not detail behavior such as error cases, auth prerequisites, or response envelope. No contradiction with annotations.
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 that states the action, target, and result fields with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, no output schema, and read-only annotation, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource and all returned fields. It could add a brief note on auth context or error behavior, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates minimally by listing the fields that will be returned, which is more meaningful than an empty schema alone.
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 ('Return') and names the exact resource ('authenticated user's profile') followed by a concrete list of fields. It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling getters like get_stats or get_template.
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 context is implied by 'authenticated user's profile' and the sibling tool names, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It is adequate but leaves inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.