Fetch a Nostr profile (kind:0 metadata) for any public key, with optional relay selection and no wallet required.
Get a Nostr profile (kind:0 metadata) for any public key. No wallet required.
Tip: call earning_opportunities to see how to put your assets to work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| relay | No | Single relay URL to query. Defaults to all DEFAULT_RELAYS. | |
| pubkey | Yes | Public key to look up (hex or npub bech32 format). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.77.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that no wallet/auth is needed and that the payload is kind:0 metadata, but it says nothing about behavior when the pubkey has no profile, what happens if the specified relay is unreachable, or whether results from multiple default relays are merged.
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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded with the useful information. The second sentence ("Tip: call `earning_opportunities`...") does not earn its place — it is marketing noise that dilutes an otherwise clean two-line definition.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about what a returned profile contains (display name, about, picture, nip05?) and the not-found case. The core lookup semantics are covered, but an agent still cannot predict the response shape.
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% — both `pubkey` (hex or npub bech32) and `relay` (defaults to all DEFAULT_RELAYS) are documented in the schema. The description adds no formatting or fallback detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get a Nostr profile") and adds the domain detail that it returns kind:0 metadata for any public key, which distinguishes it from nostr_set_profile (the write counterpart) and nostr_get_pubkey. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the operation is 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?
"No wallet required" is useful prerequisite context that tells the agent this read can be done without unlocked keys, which is real guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs nostr_set_profile / nostr_read_feed, and the trailing tip pointing at `earning_opportunities` is unrelated cross-promotion rather than guidance for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.