Fetch the public GitHub profile of imshashwatsingh to access user details and statistics.
Get the public GitHub profile of imshashwatsingh.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_github_profile"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'Get the public GitHub profile' without mentioning authentication requirements, rate limits, return format, or side effects. The description is minimally transparent beyond the core action.
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 fluff. It states the action and target clearly, earning full marks for conciseness.
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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what it does. It could mention the return format, but the core purpose is clear and complete for the given context.
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 schema coverage is effectively 100% (vacuously). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. It does not add any misleading parameter info.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('public GitHub profile of imshashwatsingh'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools (file operations), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 context is clear: use when you need the public GitHub profile for the specified user. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so confusion is unlikely. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, hence not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.