sendbird_get_userFetch a single user by user_id. Platform API: GET /users/{user_id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | Target user id (percent-encoded automatically). | |
| super_mode | No | Scope unread count by Supergroup vs. group channels. | |
| custom_types | No | Comma-separated channel custom types to scope the unread count. | |
| include_unread_count | No | Include the user's total unread message count. |
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?
Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds 'GET /users/{user_id}' and 'Fetch', confirming a read operation. It does not disclose additional behavior such as 404 handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, but with annotations covering the safety profile, no contradiction or major gap exists.
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 sentences with zero filler. The core action ('Fetch a single user by user_id') is front-loaded, and the endpoint line is a concise, useful addition. Every word earns its place.
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 read-only fetch with a fully described schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, nothing essential is missing. An agent knows the target identifier, the operation, and can rely on the schema for parameter semantics; no output schema is present, but the return value is implied by the operation.
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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including their formats and meanings. The description adds no parameter-level information, meriting the baseline score of 3.
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 ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('a single user'), and the required identifier ('user_id'). Clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like sendbird_list_users and sendbird_update_user, and the endpoint line reinforces the exact operation.
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?
Usage is implied by 'a single user by user_id' — an agent can infer it should be used when a specific user_id is known and one user is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as sendbird_list_users for fetching multiple users, nor any exclusions or conditions.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource-action pair (users, group/open channels, members, messages), and the get/list/create/update/send verbs keep boundaries clear. The raw GET escape hatch is explicitly limited to unwrapped paths, so it does not create meaningful overlap.
All tools follow the predictable sendbird_<verb>_<resource> snake_case pattern, with consistent verbs like create, get, list, update, and send. The generic sendbird_request is a deliberate exception rather than a naming inconsistency.
14 tools is within the ideal range and each tool covers a coherent piece of Sendbird's chat platform: users, channels, members, messages, and a raw GET fallback. There are no redundant or filler tools.
The set covers common read/list flows and some mutations, but lifecycle coverage has notable gaps: group channels can be created and read but not updated/deleted, messages can be sent and listed but not updated/deleted, and users have no delete operation. The raw GET tool is read-only and cannot compensate for these missing write operations.