Retrieve the authenticated user's SignUpGenius profile details—name, email, member ID, and subscription level—to verify credentials before other actions.
Get the SignUpGenius profile of the authenticated user (name, email, member ID, subscription level). Useful as a first call to confirm credentials. Key mode hits /v2/k/user/profile; session mode hits /v3/member/profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context by disclosing that key mode routes to /v2/k/user/profile while session mode routes to /v3/member/profile, which is genuinely useful for understanding mode-dependent behavior.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action and returned fields, followed by a usage hint and endpoint detail. All three sentences earn their place, though the endpoint path detail is somewhat technical and could be trimmed for pure invocation purposes.
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 compensates by listing the profile fields returned and noting the mode-specific endpoints. Combined with readOnly annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.
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, so there is no parameter semantics to document; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required by framing it as a profile lookup of the authenticated user.
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 (Get) and resource (the SignUpGenius profile of the authenticated user), and enumerates the returned fields (name, email, member ID, subscription level). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools that operate on groups, members, or slots.
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?
Gives a concrete usage cue: 'Useful as a first call to confirm credentials,' which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, but the intent is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.