Retrieve the authenticated user's or bot's profile information to identify the current account and enable context-aware Pumble workspace interactions.
Get profile information of the authenticated user/bot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the implicit read-only nature via "Get" and the authentication requirement via "authenticated user/bot," but says nothing about what fields are returned, how bot profiles differ from user profiles, or the failure mode when unauthenticated.
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 short sentence with zero redundancy, and the resource and scope are front-loaded. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.
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 with no output schema, the description omits the one thing an agent cannot get elsewhere: what the profile object actually contains (fields, bot vs user shape). It is callable as written but leaves the agent guessing at the return payload.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies the identity is derived from the caller's credentials rather than an argument.
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 specific verb and resource ("Get profile information") plus a clear scope: the authenticated user/bot, which separates it from the sibling list_users_not_for_id_lookup. It doesn't name that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent must infer that this is the 'self' lookup versus list_users_not_for_id_lookup for other users; that inference is easy but not stated anywhere.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.