Update this account's profile. Only provided fields are changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | New email address | ||
| username | No | New username (lowercase, alphanumeric + hyphens/underscores) | |
| display_name | No | New display name |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the key partial-update behavior ('Only provided fields are changed'), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., email verification, auth requirements, or whether the profile is updated immediately) that would improve transparency.
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 short, direct sentences convey the essential information without fluff. The verb is front-loaded, and every word adds meaning.
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 simple profile update with three optional fields, the description covers purpose and behavioral nuance. No output schema exists, but the absence of return-value details is acceptable given the low complexity and availability of get_my_profile for verification. It's almost complete, though a mention of success/failure response would push it to 5.
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%, with each parameter well-documented. The description adds critical semantic value beyond the schema by specifying that only provided fields are changed, which clarifies how optional parameters behave. This helps the agent understand that omitted fields remain untouched.
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 the action ('Update') and the resource ('this account's profile') clearly. The qualifier 'Only provided fields are changed' adds precision and helps distinguish it from a full-profile overwrite. Among siblings, get_my_profile is for reading, so the purpose is distinct.
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 phrase 'this account's profile' implies it's for your own profile, but there's no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusion criteria. Since no sibling tool updates profiles, the intended usage is reasonably clear, but the description doesn't explicitly state when this is the right tool.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes. For example, list_my_books and my_books both list authored books, and author_dashboard is a superset; list_orders and my_orders are near-duplicates; check_earnings and payout_balance both report earnings. This creates confusion and risks misselection.
Naming is inconsistent. While many tools use verb_noun (list_annotations, get_book_details), others use my_* (my_books, my_orders), bare nouns (payout_balance), or compound verbs (connect_onboard). The lack of a uniform pattern makes the set feel disjointed.
49 tools is excessive for a server, especially with at least three sets of near-duplicates. The platform is complex, but many tools could be merged (e.g., my_books and list_my_books, list_orders and my_orders). This count will overwhelm agents and increase misselection risk.
The toolset covers the core domain well: discover, purchase, read, comment, review, annotate, publish, monetize, verify, and manage payouts. Minor gaps exist, such as no update/delete annotation, no delete review, and no single-item getter for annotations/reviews, but these are not critical to the main workflows.