ah_get_member_profileRetrieve your Albert Heijn member profile to view your name, masked email, and the last four digits of your bonus card number.
Get your Albert Heijn member profile. Returns name, email (masked), and bonus_card_number (last 4 digits only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| No | |||
| bonus_card_number | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "bonus_card_number": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "email": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered; the description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing that email is masked and bonus_card_number is truncated to the last 4 digits. It still doesn't state the authentication requirement, which is relevant for a member-specific 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 the action, with the return payload summarized second. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description is not obliged to enumerate return values, yet it gives a useful précis of the payload. For a zero-parameter, read-only tool this is close to complete; the only omission is the authentication precondition.
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 and the description correctly introduces no invented inputs, leaving nothing to misinterpret. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4 since there is no parameter semantics to add.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get your Albert Heijn member profile") and further scopes it by describing exactly which fields come back. No sibling tool in the list covers member profile retrieval, so the purpose is unambiguous without needing explicit differentiation.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for 'who am I / my loyalty details', and there is no competing sibling for that need. However, the description never states when to call it (e.g., after ah_login, only for authenticated users) or any preconditions, so it stays at the minimum-viable level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.