list_page_profile_fieldsRetrieve the profile fields configured for a given Circle community page, such as signup, edit_profile, or profile_view, to see what form data each page collects.
Get Page Profile Fields. Reads community data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Named private Circle account; selects credentials, not a remote community ID. | |
| page_name | Yes | Page name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no return shape, no scoping, no note on which 'community data' is read or whether credential selection via 'account' matters.
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, which is good, but the second sentence ('Reads community data') is vague filler rather than information, and the first sentence merely echoes the title. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient concision.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should at least clarify what page profile fields are and how this differs from list_profile_fields. Instead it leaves the domain concept unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for an agent choosing among many list_* tools.
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 100%, so both parameters (account, page_name with its enum) are already fully documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description contributes zero additional parameter meaning.
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 repeats the title verbatim ('Get Page Profile Fields') and adds only the tautological 'Reads community data.' It never says what a page profile field actually is or how it differs from the sibling list_profile_fields, so an agent cannot distinguish the two without opening schemas.
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?
'Reads community data' hints at a read operation but gives no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no routing against the many list_* siblings (notably list_profile_fields). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.