payping_get_profileRetrieve PayPing account profile to verify token validity and view username, name, email, phone, and verification flags.
Show the PayPing account behind PAYPING_TOKEN: username, name, email, phone and verification flags. Use first to confirm the token works.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it identifies the exact fields exposed and positions the call as a token-validity probe, which is behavior the annotations don't convey. It omits any note on auth failure behavior or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.
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, zero filler. The scope (what is shown) comes first and the usage guidance ('Use first...') is a tight, front-loaded follow-up.
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?
A no-parameter read tool with an output schema, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. The description covers what is returned, why it matters, and when to call it — nothing an agent needs is missing.
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, so the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose semantics the description could clarify, and it correctly introduces none.
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?
Specific verb ('Show') plus resource ('the PayPing account behind PAYPING_TOKEN') and an explicit enumeration of returned fields (username, name, email, phone, verification flags). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_balance or list_transactions without the agent needing to open any schema.
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?
'Use first to confirm the token works' gives clear, actionable context for when to call it — as a prerequisite/health-check step. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it, but the primary usage condition is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.