get_thinking_profileReads the current thinking profile from system/thinking-profile.yaml and returns a default structure when the file is missing, so you can inspect the active profile.
Read and return the current thinking profile from system/thinking-profile.yaml.
Falls back to default structure if the file does not exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly states it reads from a YAML file and falls back to a default structure if the file does not exist, which is an important behavioral detail. No mention of idempotency or side effects, but the read-only nature is implied.
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, no redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, and the fallback behavior is provided in a separate sentence. Every word adds value.
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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is adequate. It specifies the source path and fallback behavior. Could be improved by explicitly stating idempotency or read-only nature, but the current info is sufficient for an agent to understand what happens.
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?
No parameters exist, so there is nothing to explain. The schema coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline expectation. The description correctly avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details.
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?
Title and description clearly state it reads the thinking profile from a specific file. The verb 'Read and return' plus resource path makes purpose unambiguous. Siblings like reset_thinking_profile and update_thinking_profile confirm this as the read operation.
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 guidance is minimal—only describes what the tool does, not when to use it versus alternatives. No explicit when-not-to-use or mention of sibling tools. For a zero-parameter getter, the need is obvious, but explicit guidance could improve differentiation from related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.