BugSecure MCP

Edit my public researcher profile

update_my_profile

DestructiveIdempotent

Update the public bio, website, or country on a BugSecure researcher profile. Only provided fields change; empty values clear them, and updates are visible to everyone.

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 old and new values first.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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

TableJSON 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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses partial-update semantics ('only the fields given'), clearing behavior ('an empty string clears one'), public visibility ('Everyone on BugSecure sees them'), and a confirmation requirement. These are the behavioral traits an agent needs and they are not derivable from the annotations.

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 verb, resource and fields, then scope limits, then the confirmation gate. No filler and every clause carries actionable information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation. For a 3-param mutation tool the description covers semantics, visibility, scope exclusions and the confirmation prerequisite, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents bio length, website URL format, and the country ISO code with examples. The description reinforces the empty-string clearing rule and adds an ISO 3166-1 example, but adds little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb (Change) on a specific resource (bio, website or country on the signed-in researcher's public BugSecure profile) and names the exact editable fields. It is immediately distinguishable from the read-only siblings get_my_profile and get_researcher_profile.

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 precondition ('Only call this when the user asked; they approve the old and new values first') and an explicit boundary for what must be done elsewhere (avatar, email, sign-in, payout details stay on the website). The when-to-use and when-not-to-use routing is unambiguous.

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