Retrieve sign-in details for an openGym profile, including username, password status, email, and passkey metadata. Use it to review account credentials before managing changes in the openGym app.
How this profile signs in: its sign-in name, whether it has a password, its sign-in e-mail, and its passkeys (name, created, last used). Changing the password, e-mail or passkeys is done in the openGym app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description usefully scopes the tool to 'this profile' and points to the app for writes, but that latter claim sits awkwardly beside sibling write tools like write_passkey_name and write_settings, which could mislead an agent about available write paths. No return format, freshness, or pagination details are given.
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 with zero filler, front-loaded with the scoping phrase 'How this profile signs in:' so the agent knows the subject immediately, followed by a compact enumeration of fields and one routing note.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description compensates reasonably by enumerating the returned fields (including passkey sub-fields), which is the main thing an agent needs from a zero-argument read. It stops short of stating whether the values can be absent or what the empty case looks like, leaving a small gap.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because none is needed, and the schema is vacuously 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?
The description names the resource precisely and enumerates the fields exposed: sign-in name, password presence, sign-in e-mail, and passkeys with name/created/last-used. That is enough to separate it from generic identity readers, but it never names or contrasts a sibling such as read_profile or read_settings, which is the closest ambiguity for an agent.
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 implied by the field list (look up how the current profile authenticates), but there is no explicit 'use this when' statement or comparison to alternatives. The one piece of routing guidance — that password, e-mail, and passkey changes happen in the app — is a partial when-not, not a full one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.