Retrieve the stored job-seeker profile for skill, role, and seniority matching. Returns an empty result when no profile has been saved yet.
Return the stored profile (empty if none has been set yet).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skills | No | ||
| summary | No | ||
| projects | No | ||
| target_roles | No | ||
| years_experience | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: the return is empty if no profile has been set, which tells the agent how to interpret a null/blank result.
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 the main behavior front-loaded and the edge case parenthetically appended. Zero waste.
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-shape explanation is not required, and the empty-state caveat covers the main ambiguity. The only shortfall is the absence of any relationship to sibling tools.
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, which is the baseline-4 case. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate.
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 (Return) and resource (stored profile), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling set_profile (the write counterpart), leaving the read-vs-write routing to inference.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb 'Return' but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative (e.g., 'use set_profile to create one'). Adequate but with a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.