Create reusable role-based agent profiles with custom system prompts, model settings, and tags, then use them for solo execution or bounded multi-agent discussions.
Create a reusable profile. Provider endpoint and API key are server-wide.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| role | No | general | |
| tags | No | ||
| model | No | ||
| temperature | No | ||
| system_prompt | Yes | ||
| max_output_tokens | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one genuinely useful fact not in the schema — that provider endpoint and API key are server-wide and therefore not per-agent inputs — but says nothing about persistence, name-collision behavior, permissions, or whether created agents are immediately runnable by run_solo.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key constraint. No filler, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than tight editing.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the server-wide credential note is helpful. But for a 7-parameter creation tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves an agent without enough information to populate parameters confidently or know how this interacts with update_agent/run_solo.
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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implicitly explains the absence of endpoint/API-key arguments, but leaves name, role, tags, model, temperature, and max_output_tokens entirely uninterpreted (valid ranges, defaults' meaning, format of tags).
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?
"Create a reusable profile" gives a verb and a resource, but "profile" is an oblique synonym for "agent" and is not clearly differentiated from the siblings update_agent, list_agents, run_solo, and run_discussion. An agent can infer it creates an agent-like entity, but the description never uses the word "agent" or clarifies the relation to run_solo/run_discussion.
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 use this vs. update_agent or list_agents, no prerequisites, no mention of what to do if an agent with the same name already exists. The only contextual hint is that provider credentials are server-wide, which is a constraint rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.