profiles_createCreate an agent profile for Omnara by linking a name to an organization, project, and configuration.
Create agent profile
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Human-readable name. Spaces and punctuation are allowed; leading or trailing whitespace and invisible or control characters are not. | |
| orgID | Yes | ||
| config | Yes | ||
| projectID | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, but the description adds no behavioral context of its own — no note on what gets created, whether duplicates are rejected, or what permissions are required. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is a minimal but not misleading definition.
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?
A four-word sentence is technically concise but is under-specified rather than efficient — brevity here is a symptom of missing information, not editorial discipline.
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 mutation tool with four required parameters, three of them pattern-constrained IDs, and no output schema, the description supplies nothing an agent needs to call it correctly: not the meaning of the parameters, not the prerequisites, not the effect of the call.
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 description coverage is only 25% (just the name field), and three required parameters (orgID, config, projectID) are documented only by regex patterns. The description makes no attempt to explain that these are opaque ID references or what values are valid, leaving the coverage gap entirely unaddressed.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing an existing config, org, and project), and no reference to the many related sibling tools such as profiles_update or profiles_delete. The agent is left to infer everything.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.