get_user_profileRetrieves a user's onboarding status, registered insurance count, and unmapped policy riders to verify profile completeness before claim estimation.
사용자의 온보딩 상태, 등록 보험 수, 미매핑 특약을 조회합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pin | No | ||
| user_id | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. '조회합니다' implies a read, but nothing is said about whether the operation is safe, whether the pin is required for authentication, or what happens when a user has no onboarding record. The presence of a sensitive 'pin' parameter with zero explanation is a notable disclosure gap.
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 compact sentence with no waste, but it is arguably under-specified rather than concise. There is no front-loaded statement of what the tool returns as a whole (a profile object) beyond the enumerated fields.
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 return values needn't be spelled out, but the tool has two parameters with zero schema documentation and no annotations, and the description closes none of that gap. The unexplained 'pin' parameter alone makes the definition incomplete for correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate and it does not — it never mentions user_id or pin. The 'pin' property (nullable string, default null) is particularly mysterious: is it a credential, an optional filter, or a legacy field? An agent cannot determine how or whether to supply it.
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 ('조회합니다' = retrieve user profile) and enumerates the three data points returned: onboarding status, registered policy count, unmapped riders. That is far more informative than the bare name/title, but it makes no attempt to distinguish this from siblings like list_user_policies or list_standard_rules, which overlap in subject matter.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus the ten sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the profile-summary entry point while list_user_policies is the detailed-policy tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.