profile_saveSave or update your job seeker profile—target direction, experience, target roles, cities, skills, and notes—so all other tools reference your details. Set it first.
保存/更新求职者个人画像（目标方向、年限、目标岗位、意向城市、技能、补充说明）。画像会被所有其他工具引用，建议先设置。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| notes | No | 经历亮点、特殊约束等 | |
| years | No | 工作年限 | |
| cities | No | ||
| domain | No | 目标方向，如 Web3 前端 | |
| skills | No | ||
| targetRoles | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds meaningful cross-tool behavioral context (the profile is consumed by all other tools), but it does not state whether fields merge or replace on update, what happens to omitted fields, or whether an existing profile is required.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the foundational-usage note; no filler. Could be marginally tighter but every clause earns its place.
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?
For a 7-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, field inventory, and cross-tool role adequately but omits update/merge semantics and whether anything is required. Enough to call safely, not enough to predict mutation behavior.
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?
Schema coverage is low at 43% (only notes/years/domain are described), so the description must compensate. It enumerates semantic labels for 目标方向(domain), 年限(years), 目标岗位(targetRoles), 意向城市(cities), 技能(skills) and 补充说明(notes), adding real meaning for the undocumented array params.
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?
Names a specific verb+resource (保存/更新求职者个人画像) and enumerates the fields it holds, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling profile_get. It doesn't explicitly name profile_get as its read counterpart, but the save/get split is inferable.
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?
States that the profile is referenced by all other tools and recommends setting it up first, which is genuine when-to-use guidance for a foundational tool. It stops short of stating exclusions or an explicit alternative, but there is no real competing save tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.