Retrieve full details of a specific Keycloak or Authentik user, including enabled state, required actions, and attributes, to diagnose access or configuration issues.
[READ] One user's full detail (enabled state, required actions, attributes).
Args: user_id: User id (Keycloak UUID / authentik pk), from list_users. target: IdP target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| user_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The [READ] tag and the field enumeration (enabled state, required actions, attributes) add real context about what the read returns, but nothing about error behavior or permissions.
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?
Front-loaded with a [READ] tag, then a tight Args block. Every line earns its place with no filler, though the bracketed tag and header formatting are slightly redundant.
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 single-record read with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the id source, the target default, and the returned field families. Lack of any mention of the target's valid values or failure modes is the only gap.
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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: user_id is documented with its format (Keycloak UUID / authentik pk) plus provenance, and target is explained with the default-omission behavior. Only missing the enum of valid target values.
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+resource: retrieving one user's full detail, and enumerates what 'full detail' means (enabled state, required actions, attributes). 'One user's' implicitly distinguishes it from list_users, but no sibling is named explicitly to sharpen the boundary.
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 only implied. The workflow hint 'from list_users' tells the agent where to obtain the id, which is genuinely useful, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over user_credentials or user_lockout_status for overlapping data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.