Retrieve your own Threads profile information by specifying the fields to fetch.
Get your own Threads profile information
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_my_profile"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | Profile fields to retrieve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation ('Get') with no side effects, which is sufficient for a simple retrieval. However, it doesn't disclose response format, auth requirements, or potential edge cases, but for a straightforward profile getter this is acceptable.
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 a single, succinct sentence with no fluff. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, earning a top score for conciseness.
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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does. The absence of an output schema could warrant mentioning return value contents, but the phrase 'profile information' gives sufficient context. The description is complete enough for straightforward use.
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 100% coverage: the only parameter 'fields' is described as 'Profile fields to retrieve'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'your own Threads profile information', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_my_threads or get_my_insights. It precisely states the scope (own profile) and purpose.
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 contextual phrase 'your own' clarifies that this tool is for retrieving the authenticated user's profile, not other users. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the context is clear and no exclusions are stated. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.