itmo_get_personRetrieve an ITMO student or employee public profile by ISU number, including positions, contacts, and education.
Public profile of an ITMO student or employee by ISU number: positions, contacts, education.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| isu | Yes | ISU number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile completely. The description adds only the qualifier 'Public', which usefully signals the data is non-sensitive, but says nothing about missing/unknown ISU behavior or response shape. Modest added value on top of annotations.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and lookup key, with the returned fields appended efficiently. No filler, no redundancy.
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 output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the return categories (positions, contacts, education), which is genuinely useful for result interpretation. It falls short of stating behavior for invalid or unknown ISU values, but for a one-parameter read tool it is close to sufficient.
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% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already carries its own weight and baseline 3 applies. The description's 'by ISU number' merely restates the schema field and adds no format, range, or validation nuance.
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-plus-resource ('Public profile of an ITMO student or employee') scoped tightly to lookup by ISU number, and enumerates the returned content categories. It implies a direct-lookup role that contrasts with itmo_search_people, but never names that sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
'by ISU number' implies the precondition that the caller already holds a known ISU, which is the natural routing signal against the search sibling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of itmo_search_people, and no guidance on what to do when only a name is available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.