profiles_getRetrieve an agent profile and its current configuration, config ID, and generation using organization, project, and profile IDs.
Returns one agent profile with its current config, current_config_id, and current_generation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgID | Yes | Organization ID (org_...). | |
| projectID | Yes | Project ID (proj_...). | |
| agentProfileID | Yes | Agent profile ID (aprf_...). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / agentProfileID / descriptionAdded value: +"Agent profile ID (aprf_...)."Input schema / properties / orgID / descriptionAdded value: +"Organization ID (org_...)."Input schema / properties / projectID / descriptionAdded value: +"Project ID (proj_...)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes current config, current_config_id, and current_generation, which is useful beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about not-found/error behavior or pagination.
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 single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned fields are listed compactly and every clause earns its place.
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 get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return fields and annotations cover the operation's safety semantics. It stops short of describing failure behavior or the shape of the nested config, but is nearly complete for an operation this simple.
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 100% and all three parameters carry their own pattern-constrained descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: it returns a single agent profile, and the word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the profiles_list sibling. It does not explicitly name the alternative sibling, but the retrieval-by-identity 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: fetch a specific profile. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on obtaining the required org/project/profile IDs, and no exclusions stating when profiles_list or profiles_update would be preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.