Fetch the authorized user's own Mixcloud profile and optional account details.
The authorized user's own profile (/me/).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "me"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| metadata | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Saying 'authorized user's own profile' hints that authentication is required and that this is a read operation, but it says nothing about what is returned, whether the response shape is stable, or how the single metadata flag alters behavior.
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?
One short sentence with the endpoint path included and no filler. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though it is arguably too sparse to be fully useful.
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 simple tool this is nearly adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description leaves the metadata parameter and the return content unexplained. An agent can guess the purpose but cannot confidently predict 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 0% and the single 'metadata' boolean parameter (default false) is never mentioned in the description. Since this is not a zero-parameter tool, the description should explain what metadata toggles but does not, leaving the parameter's meaning undocumented everywhere.
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?
The description names the resource precisely — the authorized user's own profile at the /me/ endpoint — so an agent knows it returns the caller's own account rather than an arbitrary user's. It distinguishes itself implicitly from the sibling get_user (which presumably takes an id), though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_user or check_token, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the title-less name 'me' and the terse description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.