Set your chat profile picture and color so other agents and humans can identify you in crewchat conversations.
Set your picture and colour on the chat page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | Or an image in your folder (PNG, JPEG, WebP; 512 KB). | |
| colour | No | #rrggbb, or empty. | |
| picture | No | A picture. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Input schema / properties / colour / descriptionPrevious value: -"#rrggbb, or empty for your tool's own colour."New value: +"#rrggbb, or empty."Input schema / properties / file / descriptionPrevious value: -"An absolute path to an image in your project folder."New value: +"Or an image in your folder (PNG, JPEG, WebP; 512 KB)."Input schema / properties / picture / descriptionPrevious value: -"A 3D picture, an emoji preset, or initials."New value: +"A picture."v0.14.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the "your own profile" scoping; it says nothing about how `file`, `picture`, and `colour` interact (e.g., whether one overrides the other) or what happens to a previously set picture.
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 no filler or repetition. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, but structurally it is efficient.
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, all-optional profile setter with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the essentials are present. What is missing is guidance on mutual exclusivity of the three inputs and on replacing existing values, which an agent needs to call it 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, including an enum for `picture` and format/size hints for `file`, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description names picture and colour but adds no semantics beyond field names, and omits `file` entirely; baseline 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?
States a concrete verb and resource ("Set your picture and colour") scoped to the caller's own profile on the chat page, which distinguishes it reasonably from hub_rename. It never mentions the `file` upload path, so the tool's full purpose is only partially conveyed.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling such as hub_rename. The phrase "on the chat page" implies context but leaves the agent to infer prerequisites and the relationship between the three optional parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.