Retrieve a RetroAchievements user's profile, including rank, status, recent games and unlocks, and awards. Filter by user, award limit, and sections to include.
User profile and points. include: summary (rank, status, recent games/unlocks), awards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | No | Default: configured user | |
| limit | No | Max award rows | |
| images | No | ||
| include | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of returned content (summary fields, awards) but says nothing about pagination, data freshness, or what the limit parameter controls.
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?
Very short and front-loaded: the resource is stated first, then the include options. The telegraphic 'include: summary (...), awards' phrasing is compact but slightly fragmented; nothing is wasted.
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 should carry more of the return-value burden; it does sketch the summary and awards sections, which helps. But three of four parameters remain undocumented in both the schema and the description, so an agent cannot fully determine how to scope or shape the request.
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 coverage is only 50%, and the description meaningfully expands on the 'include' enum by explaining what 'summary' contains. It gives no information about the undocumented 'user', 'limit' (max award rows), or 'images' parameters, leaving half the parameter surface unexplained. Baseline 3 given the partial coverage.
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 identifies the resource (user profile and points) and enumerates the retrievable sections (summary: rank, status, recent games/unlocks; awards), which goes slightly beyond restating the name. However, it never states a verb and offers no differentiation from siblings like get_user_games, get_user_unlocks, or get_user_social, all of which appear to return overlapping user data.
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 only usage signal is the 'include' list, which implies the include parameter's valid values but says nothing about when to call this tool versus the many sibling user-data tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.