get_my_profileRetrieve the signed-in employee's own profile—staff ID, name, organization, permission role—and today's date in Japan time for identity and access checks.
Get the signed-in employee's own profile (従業員情報): staff ID, name, organization (所属), and permission role (company_admin 企業管理者 / admin 一般管理者 / employee 従業員). Also returns today's date in Japan time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing what is returned, including role values and Japan-time date information, though it does not discuss permissions, error behavior, or response shape beyond the field list.
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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action first, then the returned fields and role values. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or filler.
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-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is complete. Since there is no output schema, it correctly explains the returned fields and includes the relevant role and timezone details.
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 tool takes no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the signed-in employee's own profile.' It further clarifies the exact contents (staff ID, name, organization, permission role) and distinguishes the resource from siblings such as projects, status, stamps, and work records.
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 that the tool is used to retrieve the current user's profile, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to sibling tools such as get_today_status or get_my_projects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.