get_profileRetrieves the authenticated ScreenApp account profile to confirm which account was selected during OAuth authorization.
Read the profile for the authenticated ScreenApp account. Useful for confirming which account OAuth selected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the OAuth account confirmation context, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Given the rich annotations, the bar is low and the description offers a modest addition.
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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a concrete use case. Every word earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool does and when to call it. No output schema exists, but specifying the return format is not necessary for selecting or invoking the tool.
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?
There are zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter details since none exist. No compensation 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?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('profile for the authenticated ScreenApp account'), and adds a concrete use case (confirming which account OAuth selected). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recording or get_team, which target different resources.
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 description explicitly mentions when the tool is useful ('confirming which account OAuth selected'), giving agents a clear trigger for invocation. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a zero-parameter read-only tool, the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.