get_userLook up a WindowsForum member's public profile by username or user id — registration date, message count, reaction score, and role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identifier | Yes | Username or user ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only behavior is clear. The description adds value by specifying the exact fields returned (registration date, message count, etc.) and notes it is a 'public profile,' implying no special authentication needed.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists return fields. No unnecessary words.
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 lookup tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, input, and output sufficiently without missing elements.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The description reinforces that the identifier can be a username or user ID but does not add new constraints or formatting details beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and identifies the resource ('WindowsForum member's public profile') along with the return fields (registration date, message count, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_users, which is for searching by criteria.
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 is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as search_users. The description does not explain prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest sibling tools for broader searches.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the numerous search variants (search, search_elastic, search_semantic, search_threads, search_posts) overlap in functionality. However, detailed descriptions help differentiate them, so only minor ambiguity exists.
Tool names predominantly follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, search_, list_). However, 'fetch' is a bare verb, and 'list_threads' uses 'list' instead of 'get', creating slight inconsistency. Overall, the pattern is clear.
With 22 tools, the count is on the higher side for a forum server. Several search tools could be consolidated, but the scope (reading threads, posts, users, statistics, KB articles) justifies the number. Borderline heavy.
The tool surface covers all read operations for a forum: threads, posts, users, statistics, news, KB articles, and multiple search methods. However, there are no write tools (create, update, delete), which is a minor gap if interaction is expected.