tianshu-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_profiles

get_profiles

Read-only

Check which external AI agents are adapted and ready to execute development tasks, including placeholders for uninstalled or under-investigation agents.

Instructions

查看当前 agent 适配与可执行探测结果（含未安装/调研占位提示）。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`mode`	No
`model`	No
`round`	No
`checks`	No
`result`	No
`status`	No
`taskId`	No
`agentId`	No
`logFile`	No
`message`	No
`diffstat`	No
`errorType`	No
`finishedAt`	No
`abortSource`	No
`projectPath`	No
`reportFiles`	No
`reportRound`	No
`cancelReason`	No
`changedFiles`	No
`keptInstance`	No
`lastRunSignal`	No
`modelProvider`	No
`needsUserKind`	No
`agentEndReason`	No
`permissionMode`	No
`zcodeSessionId`	No
`pendingQuestion`	No
`progressSummary`	No
`boundProjectPath`	No
`cancelRequestedAt`	No
`verificationSource`	No
`latestVerificationVerdict`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0Sep 17, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "abortSource": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "agentEndReason": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "agentId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "boundProjectPath": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "cancelReason": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "cancelRequestedAt": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "changedFiles": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "checks": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "durationMs": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "passed": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "name",
+          "passed",
+          "durationMs"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "diffstat": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "errorType": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "finishedAt": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "keptInstance": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "lastRunSignal": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "latestVerificationVerdict": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "logFile": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "mode": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "model": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "modelProvider": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "needsUserKind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "pendingQuestion": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "permissionMode": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "progressSummary": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "projectPath": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reportFiles": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "json": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "md": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "reportRound": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "result": {},
+    "round": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "taskId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "verificationSource": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "zcodeSessionId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.5.4Sep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, setting the safety profile. The description adds value by revealing that results may include placeholder prompts for uninstalled/research items, giving the agent insight into the content of the output. It does not contradict 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?

A single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately communicates the scope. No filler or unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, read-only, output schema exists), the description is fully sufficient. It clearly states what the tool does and what kind of results to expect. No additional details are needed for correct invocation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, the score is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since no parameters exist.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states a specific verb ('查看/view') and resource ('当前 agent 适配与可执行探测结果' - current agent adaptation and executable probing results), and also notes placeholder hints. It distinguishes itself from siblings, which are all task-related (run_task, query_task, etc.), by focusing on profiling results rather than task execution.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage: if you want to view agent adaptation and probing results, call this tool. However, it provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternative tools. Since siblings are fundamentally different, no exclusion is needed, but the lack of explicit context leaves this at an implied level.

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

Deploy Server