obs_get_profileRead OBS personal and program profile details, with sensitive fields redacted by default; sensitive output requires operator permission.
Read OBS personal/program profile. Sensitive fields are redacted. include_sensitive=true has an effect only when the operator set NINOVA_ALLOW_SENSITIVE_OUTPUT.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_sensitive | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueOutput schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "result": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+}Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "result"
+]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"obs_get_profileDictOutput"New value: +"obs_get_profileOutput"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: sensitive fields are redacted by default, and include_sensitive only takes effect when the operator has set NINOVA_ALLOW_SENSITIVE_OUTPUT. That explains why a request may silently return redacted data.
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?
Three short sentences with the core action first and the two behavioral caveats following. 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the one parameter and the redaction policy. It could say slightly more about what the profile contains, but nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single parameter. It explains both what include_sensitive does and its conditional-effect caveat, which the bare boolean schema does not convey.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read OBS personal/program profile') rather than restating the name. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many other obs_* read tools in the sibling list.
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?
Usage is implied for anyone wanting the profile, and the description usefully states the precondition for include_sensitive=true. However, it gives no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing against siblings like obs_auth_status or obs_get_registration_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.