Get a user profile by screen name (userName).
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": {
"userName": "<userName>"
},
"name": "get_user_info"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userName | Yes | Screen name without @ |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
No schema history has been recorded yet.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of behavior for unknown screen names, deleted/suspended accounts, or what profile fields come back on this open-world call.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It is terse to the point of under-specification but not padded.
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?
With a complete schema and full annotations, plus no output schema to explain, the description is minimally sufficient for calling the tool. It is thin on return content and edge-case behavior, but nothing essential to invocation is missing.
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% and the single parameter is documented as 'Screen name without @'; the description echoes that it takes a screen name but adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter detail.
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 and resource: 'Get a user profile by screen name'. Clear what it returns conceptually, but it offers no differentiation from siblings such as get_user_about or get_user_verified_followers, which also return user-related data.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_user_about or batch_get_users_by_ids, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and sibling list.
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.