Freelance MCP Server

create_user_profile

Build a user profile that stores name, title, skills, hourly rates, location, and languages for freelance gig matching and proposals.

Instructions

Create a new user profile

Args:
    name: Full name
    title: Professional title
    skills_data: List of skills with levels and experience
    hourly_rate_min: Minimum hourly rate
    hourly_rate_max: Maximum hourly rate
    location: Location/timezone
    languages: List of languages spoken

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`location`	Yes
`languages`	Yes
`skills_data`	Yes
`hourly_rate_max`	Yes
`hourly_rate_min`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate, or any rate limits. Only the parameter list is given.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then a clean list of Args. It's appropriately sized with no wasted words, though the formatting as a code block with indentation is slightly informal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter required-everything tool with output schema available, the description covers parameters but misses behavioral context like return value, side effects, or validation rules. It's minimally adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It briefly explains each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'Full name', 'Professional title'), which adds some clarity beyond the schema's titles, but lacks format details (e.g., skills_data structure, rate currency). This is a modest improvement.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Create a new user profile'. It distinguishes from siblings like validate or optimize_profile, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate or optimize_profile. It simply states what it does without context or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server