get_profile_imageRetrieve an account holder's Starling Bank profile image, if available, and optionally save it to a specified file.
Returns the account holder's profile image, if one exists. Optionally also saves it to a file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| saveAs | No | Also save to this file name or absolute path | |
| accountHolderUid | No | Account holder UID (optional; looked up automatically) |
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/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts: the result may not exist, and it can write to disk. It does not describe the return format (binary, URL, base64) or file-overwrite 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?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the optional side effect.
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 0-required-param read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It states the return subject and the one notable side effect, though it could clarify what the returned image representation looks like.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the auto-lookup of accountHolderUid. The description's mention of saving to a file only restates the saveAs parameter, adding no syntax or path 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 and resource ('Returns the account holder's profile image') and the conditional ('if one exists'). The 'account holder's' scope distinguishes it from sibling image tools like get_payee_image and get_space_photo, though it doesn't name them.
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 optional saving behavior is implied by 'Optionally also saves it to a file,' and the 'if one exists' clause hints at a possible empty result. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against the other image-retrieval siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.