Retrieve the authenticated user's profile, consent log, and recorded search interests, showing what data the server holds and what consent(false) removes.
Everything this server holds about YOU (authenticated users): profile, consent log, recorded search interests. Your right to know — and the map for what consent(false) erases from use.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavior burden. It names the returned contents (profile, consent log, search interests) and mentions the consent(false) interaction, but does not confirm read-only semantics, auth requirements beyond 'authenticated users', or whether calling it has any side effects.
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?
Two compact sentences with the subject ('everything about YOU') front-loaded. The second sentence is somewhat cryptic and em-dash-heavy but still earns its place by linking the tool to the consent feature.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description enumerates what is returned, which is the key missing information. It is adequate for a zero-param read tool, though it could state the read-only nature more plainly.
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 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly requires no argument detail, consistent with the empty object schema.
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 resource with concrete contents — profile, consent log, recorded search interests — scoped to the authenticated user, which distinguishes it from sibling list_users/get_project. The verb is only implied ('everything this server holds'), but the resource and scope are 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?
Implies usage via 'your right to know' and positions the tool as the map for what consent(false) erases, which hints at a relationship with the consent sibling. However it never states explicitly when to call this versus consent, list_users, or other retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.