slack_get_user_profileRetrieve a Slack user's profile information by user ID, with an option to include custom profile field labels for complete user details.
Get a Slack user's profile information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | User ID (starts with U, W, or B) | |
| include_labels | No | Include custom profile field labels |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / properties / include_labels / descriptionAdded value: +"Include custom profile field labels"Input schema / properties / user_id / descriptionAdded value: +"User ID (starts with U, W, or B)"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as scope of profile data, permission needs, or rate-limit 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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though its terseness contributes to the missing sibling differentiation.
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?
The tool is simple, the schema is fully described, and an output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. Still, the description does not help an agent distinguish this from slack_get_user_info or clarify what profile information is returned.
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 both parameters are documented in the input schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a Slack user's profile information.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish it from the sibling tool slack_get_user_info, which sounds nearly identical.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as slack_get_user_info or slack_list_users. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.