Retrieve the signed-in user's profile details, including email, username, and organization, to confirm identity and account context when screening stocks.
Return the signed-in user's profile (email, username, organization).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail about what the profile contains (email, username, organization), but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements or potential error conditions.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It conveys the action, the subject, and the expected content efficiently.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the three expected profile fields and the user scope. It does not define the exact response structure, but no output schema exists and the simple nature of the tool makes this acceptable.
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?
There are zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% since the schema is empty. The description compensates by describing the return value, which is the only semantically relevant information for invoking the tool.
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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource: the signed-in user's profile, listing the key fields (email, username, organization). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like auth_status.
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?
The description provides clear context: use this tool to retrieve the profile of the currently signed-in user. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but for a zero-parameter profile read the implied usage is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.