intempus_get_my_profileRetrieve your employee record, contracts, work model, locked date, and approver levels from Visma Intempus to verify profile details and approval scope.
Your Intempus employee record, contracts (work model, locked date) and approver levels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the returned data (employee record, contracts, approver levels) in the absence of an output schema.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the essential facts (owner, resource, contents) arrive immediately.
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 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description does most of the remaining work by naming the returned sections. It could still clarify the authenticated-user scoping versus other lookups, but nothing critical is missing for a no-arg read.
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 zero parameters, for which the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies an implicit self-scope ("Your ... record"), reinforcing that no identifier argument is needed.
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 resource — the caller's Intempus employee record — and enumerates its contents (contracts with work model and locked date, approver levels). However, it never distinguishes itself from the overlapping sibling intempus_whoami, which an agent could reasonably pick instead.
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 statement of when to call this versus siblings, and the potential overlap with intempus_whoami is left unaddressed. The agent must infer usage purely from the noun phrase.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.