profile_getRetrieve the saved CV profile and all variant names before creating or tailoring resumes, cover letters, or rewriting. Shows the exact profile used by those tools.
Return the stored CV profile exactly as resume_create, cover_letter_create and tailor_to_job will use it, plus the variant read and every stored variant name. Call it before any rewrite.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variant | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context: the returned profile is exactly what downstream tools will use and includes variant data. It does not state side effects, output shape, or error behavior, though 'Return' implies a read operation.
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 concise, purposeful sentences with no filler. The main behavior is front-loaded, and the usage instruction follows immediately.
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 simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return contents and when to call it. It would benefit from explicit variant parameter semantics and a statement about side effects, but the essentials are present.
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. It mentions variant data and stored variant names, hinting at the meaning of the variant parameter, but it does not clearly explain how the optional variant input affects the response or what values are acceptable.
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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a clear resource ('stored CV profile') and explains how the result is used by downstream tools. It also differentiates from siblings by mentioning variant information, which separates it from resume_read and profile_set.
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?
'Call it before any rewrite' gives explicit contextual timing for when to use this tool. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.