get_my_anilist_profileRetrieve the connected AniList owner's user ID, profile URL, and score format before changing scores to avoid assuming a 10-point scale.
Get the connected owner, AniList user ID, profile URL and scoreFormat. Read before score changes; never assume a 10-point scale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the account's scale is not necessarily 10-point, so callers must not hardcode. It says nothing about what happens if no AniList account is connected (error vs null), which is the main unknown for an auth-adjacent tool.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the usage constraint. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.
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, the description usefully enumerates the four returned fields, which is the right burden to carry. The only gap is failure behavior when no owner is connected, though for a trivial zero-argument read that is a minor omission.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the 4 baseline applies. No parameter guidance is needed or missing.
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?
Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('the connected owner... AniList profile') and it enumerates exactly what comes back: owner, AniList user ID, profile URL, scoreFormat. It doesn't name or contrast a sibling (e.g. get_my_anime_statistics), so the differentiation is only implicit.
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?
Gives a concrete trigger — read this before any score change — and an explicit warning not to assume a 10-point scale, which is real decision guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative tools (update_anime_score / update_manga_score) it gates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.