Retrieves the authenticated user's profile details from Penpot.
Get current user profile
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_profile"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only implies a read operation through 'Get' but does not state whether authentication is required, what the response structure is, or whether any side effects occur. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes to meaning, achieving an ideal length for a simple getter.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps. It does not explain what the 'current user profile' contains (e.g., fields like name, email, avatar) or any preconditions (e.g., must be authenticated). While the phrase 'current user profile' is fairly standard, the missing details about the return value could cause uncertainty.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100% and there is nothing to describe. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable in this case. The absence of parameters in the description aligns with the schema.
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 'Get current user profile' clearly identifies the verb (get) and resource (current user profile). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_team or get_team_members, which target team-level data. The scope 'current user' adds specificity beyond a generic profile fetch.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It does not contrast with get_team_members or other profile-related tools. The only implied usage is to retrieve the authenticated user's profile, but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.