Phare

Get a user

get_user

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a user of the organization by ID, with their email address and role.

Tool call template

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": {
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user_id`	Yes	ID of the user to show

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	User ID
`role`	No	User current role
`email`	No	User email
`created_at`	No	Date of creation for the entity
`updated_at`	No	Date of last update for the entity

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 7, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "created_at": {
+      "description": "Date of creation for the entity",
+      "format": "date-time",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "email": {
+      "description": "User email",
+      "examples": [
+        "nicolas@phare.io"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "User ID",
+      "examples": [
+        1
+      ],
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "role": {
+      "description": "User current role",
+      "enum": [
+        "viewer",
+        "responder",
+        "member",
+        "admin"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "updated_at": {
+      "description": "Date of last update for the entity",
+      "format": "date-time",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds the useful scope constraint (organization) and previews returned fields (email, role), but says nothing about permission requirements or failure behavior for unknown IDs. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is a modest but real increment.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the action, the lookup key, and the organization scope, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, this is nearly sufficient; return values need not be described since the output schema covers them. The only shortfall is that error/not-found and permission behavior are left unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the user_id parameter is already documented. The description's 'by ID' merely restates the schema's integer identifier without adding format, range, or lookup-source detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (get a user) plus the scoping qualifier 'of the organization by ID', which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_users. It doesn't name or contrast with whoami, but the single-record-by-ID framing is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'by ID' signals this is the single-record lookup as opposed to the list_users variety. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of behavior when the user_id does not exist, and no pointer to whoami as an alternative for the caller's own record.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Phare tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?