get-userGet account information for a user.
Side effects: none (read-only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | No | Fax.Plus user ID. Default: self. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| Yes | |||
| phone | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| lastname | No | ||
| settings | No | ||
| member_of | No | ||
| account_data | No | ||
| account_type | Yes | ||
| creation_date | Yes | ||
| notifications | No | ||
| profile_image | No | ||
| last_password_modification_date | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Side effects: none (read-only),' which directly duplicates the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations. It adds no new behavioral context like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the response contains. Since annotations already declare the safety profile, the description contributes no incremental transparency.
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?
The description is two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, the second sentence 'Side effects: none (read-only)' is redundant with the annotations and could be removed without loss. It is still appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 operation with one optional parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. It lacks usage guidance (scored separately) and does not describe return values, but the output schema likely covers that. The description does not miss any critical information needed to invoke the tool.
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 the user_id parameter fully described as 'Fax.Plus user ID. Default: self.' The description does not elaborate on this parameter beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the description adds no additional meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states 'Get account information for a user,' identifying a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like get-member-details and get-token-info by focusing on account-level info, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The default 'self' is implied by the parameter schema but not stated in the description.
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 versus alternatives such as get-member-details or get-token-info. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios that would make this tool the appropriate choice. The description leaves usage decisions entirely to the agent.
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.