payping_get_profileRetrieve the PayPing account tied to PAYPING_TOKEN, showing username, name, email, phone and verification flags. Use it first to confirm the token works.
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 | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"payping_get_profileArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "payping_get_profileDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so safety is covered externally. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the auth mechanism (PAYPING_TOKEN) and the intended pre-flight/validation role, though it says nothing about failure behavior when the token is invalid.
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, front-loaded with the resource and field list, then the usage hint. No filler, no repetition of the title.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the account fields returned, and a zero-parameter read tool needs little more. Auth source and intended use are both stated, so nothing required for correct invocation 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, which is explicitly the baseline-4 case. There are no parameters whose meaning could be clarified further.
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?
Names a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('the PayPing account behind PAYPING_TOKEN') and enumerates the returned fields (username, name, email, phone, verification flags). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like payping_get_balance or payping_get_customer without needing to name them.
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 a concrete, actionable context for invocation. It does not name alternatives or state when this tool is not appropriate, so it stops short of the explicit when/when-not needed for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.