BugSecure MCP

Edit my public researcher profile

update_my_profile

DestructiveIdempotent

Instructions

Change the bio, website or country on the signed-in researcher’s public BugSecure profile (only the fields given; an empty string clears one; the country is an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code such as SN). Everyone on BugSecure sees them. Nothing else about the account can be changed here: the avatar, email, sign-in and payout details stay on the website. Only call this when the user asked; they approve the new values on BugSecure first, next to the current ones. Researcher accounts only.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bio`	No	Public bio (up to 500 characters).
`country`	No	Country as an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code (SN, CI, FR…), or an empty string to clear it.
`website`	No	Public website, http(s) URL.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`profile`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.2.2Oct 3, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / country / description
```
Previous value: -"Country, as shown on the profile."New value: +"Country as an ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code (SN, CI, FR…), or an empty string to clear it."
```
- removedInput schema / properties / country / maxLength
```
Removed value: -100
```
- removedInput schema / properties / country / minLength
```
Removed value: -0
```
First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses public visibility ('Everyone on BugSecure sees them'), the destructive semantics of clearing a field with an empty string, the partial-update contract, the human-approval gate, and the account-tier restriction. This context is exactly what an agent needs before committing a destructiveHint=true mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by semantics and then exclusions. Every clause carries distinct information; no restatement of the title or schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation with an output schema present, the description covers scope, side effects, visibility, approval flow, and prerequisites. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing, and return values are covered by the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: only supplied fields are modified and an empty string clears a value, which defines the partial-update contract. It stops short of restating per-parameter formats, which the schema already handles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Change the bio, website or country on the signed-in researcher's public BugSecure profile') and names the exact field set, which cleanly separates it from get_my_profile and get_researcher_profile. An agent can identify the operation without reading the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit gating rule ('Only call this when the user asked') plus the approval workflow on BugSecure, and explicitly excludes alternatives ('the avatar, email, sign-in and payout details stay on the website'). Also states the 'Researcher accounts only' precondition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.