Shows the active profile and confirms whether its server accepts it, including which agent it maps to. Use it to diagnose authentication, profile, or connection errors.
Show the profile in use and whether its server accepts it, as which agent. Call it on auth, profile or connection errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | No | Stored profile to use; omit for the default. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what the tool actually reports (active profile, server acceptance of it, agent identity), which is important given there is no output schema. It omits whether the check performs a live network round-trip or how failures are surfaced.
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 short sentences with no filler; the what-it-reports clause is front-loaded and the trigger condition follows. Minor awkwardness in 'whether its server accepts it, as which agent' costs a point but nothing is wasted.
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-required-parameter, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what is inspected and when to reach for it. It could be stronger by sketching the shape of the result (e.g., profile name, server URL, auth state), but nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.
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 single 'profile' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including that omitting it uses the default. The description's 'profile in use' gestures at the same concept but adds no syntax, format, or default behavior beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.
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?
States a specific verb ('Show') plus the exact facts reported: the profile in use, whether its server accepts it, and which agent identity is active. That is clearly a diagnostic/status tool, distinguishable from siblings like libredesk_articles or libredesk_publish, though the phrasing 'as which agent' is slightly ambiguous about what is being reported.
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?
Explicitly names the trigger conditions: 'Call it on auth, profile or connection errors.' That gives an agent a concrete when-to-use rule. It stops short of naming when NOT to call it or pointing to any alternative diagnostic, but no sibling appears to compete for this role.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.