Read one user_setting by id.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "user_setting_read"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The user_setting id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that—no mention of behavior when the id does not exist, tenancy scoping, or sensitivity of settings 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?
A single short sentence with no waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool, though extremely sparse.
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 trivial single-record read with full annotation and schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient. It still omits error/not-found behavior and whether settings are tenant- or user-scoped, which an agent might want.
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?
One parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already documents the id. The description's 'by id' merely restates it, adding no format or sourcing detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.
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 (read) and resource (user_setting) with single-item scope via 'by id', which implicitly distinguishes it from user_setting_list and user_setting_search. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus user_setting_list, user_setting_search, or user_setting_delete/upsert. The 'by id' phrasing hints at single-record retrieval but no alternative or precondition is stated.
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.