Retrieve the raw JSON data of the user's Fitbit profile, including personal details and settings.
Get the raw JSON response for the user's Fitbit profile.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_profile"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / propertiesAdded value: +{}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only mentions 'raw JSON response' but omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether all profile fields are returned. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for an agent to anticipate behavior.
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?
The description is one sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key verb and resource, making it efficient for quick parsing.
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 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. However, a note on the depth of profile data returned would slightly improve completeness. Overall, adequate for an agent's initial selection.
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 input schema has zero parameters, achieving 100% coverage by default. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since there are none, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool fetches the raw JSON response for the user's Fitbit profile, distinguishing it from sibling tools that retrieve specific data like activity or sleep. The verb 'Get' and resource 'user's Fitbit profile' are specific and unambiguous.
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 usage for general profile retrieval, but no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. Since siblings cover specific domains, the profile tool's purpose is implied, but no exclusions or when-not-to-use considerations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.