mcp-server-worldquantbrain

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get my profile

get_user_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the user's BRAIN profile, keeping personal fields hidden by default and including name, email, or phone only when explicitly requested.

Instructions

Return the user's BRAIN profile. Personal fields are withheld by default.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_user_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`include_pii`	No	Include name, email and phone. Only when the user asks.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`approved`	No
`personal`	No
`verified`	No
`date_created`	No
`genius_level`	No
`redacted_fields`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful privacy behavior that PII is redacted by default, but it does not say which fields remain visible or that the flag must be user-initiated — that constraint appears only in the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no waste, and the privacy default is stated immediately after the purpose. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile; only the PII-gating condition is left to the schema. For a one-optional-parameter read tool this is close to complete, missing only the explicit trigger for include_pii.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already carries its own description and default, so the baseline is 3. The description's "withheld by default" merely restates the schema's default:false rather than adding new semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Return the user's BRAIN profile" gives a specific verb and resource, clearly distinct from siblings like get_user_activity or list_messages. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with any named sibling, but the resource is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Personal fields are withheld by default" implies when the default path is used, but it never states when to call this versus alternatives such as auth_status, nor when to flip the PII switch. Usage is only implied, with the actionable condition ("only when the user asks") living in the schema rather than the description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.