Retrieve a Fanfou user's profile by user ID. Omit the ID to return the authenticated user's own profile.
Get a user's profile by id (empty = the authenticated user).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_user"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the empty-string default behavior, but says nothing about authentication requirements, whether the profile is public/private, or what happens on an unknown id, leaving the read-only safety profile only implied by the verb 'Get'.
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?
A single tight sentence with the key behavioral detail (empty = self) front-loaded in parentheses. No wasted words.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential selection key and the default case. Adding auth or error-behavior context would make it fully complete, but the gap is minor at this complexity.
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 0% and the lone parameter has only a bare default of "", so the schema alone is uninformative. The description compensates by defining the id semantics and the special empty-value case, fully covering the single parameter.
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 ('Get a user's profile') and clarifies the retrieval key (by id). The parenthetical 'empty = the authenticated user' further sharpens scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish this lookup from timeline/status siblings.
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?
Implies usage by explaining the empty-id case, which tells the agent how to fetch the caller's own profile. However, it gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings like user_timeline or verify_credentials.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.