get_profileReturn Saagar Patel's profile: name, one-line summary, site, and the about / now / uses pages. Start here to understand who this is and what they work on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds value by detailing the specific data returned (fields and pages). It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits, but for a zero-parameter read, it is largely adequate.
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 sentences with no waste. The key information is front-loaded: the purpose and return fields. Every sentence earns its place.
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 no output schema, the description provides a reasonable list of return fields and a usage hint. It could be more complete with structural details, but for a simple profile tool it is sufficient.
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?
There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details; a baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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 explicitly states it returns Saagar Patel's profile and lists specific fields (name, one-line summary, site, about/now/uses pages). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_repo_profile by specifying the resource.
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 advises to 'Start here to understand who this is,' indicating it's the initial step. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, the context of a single-person profile makes the usage clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: documents, operant results, profile, repo profiles, corpus listing, project listing, repo profile listing, and full-text search. No overlap in functionality.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, search), with 'search' being a lone verb but still clear. Minor inconsistency: 'list_corpus' uses singular 'corpus' but lists multiple items.
8 tools is well-scoped for a portfolio site, covering profile, documents, projects, repo profiles, and search without being excessive or insufficient.
Covers core read-only functionalities: profile, documents, projects, repo profiles, and search. Missing a dedicated 'get_project' tool, but list_projects provides sufficient detail for the portfolio context.