Verify whether a Sitecore user or role exists and check its account properties by supplying an identity and optional account type.
Tests if a Sitecore user exists and has specific properties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identity | Yes | The identity of the user to test (e.g. 'admin' or full path 'sitecore\admin') | |
| accountType | No | The type of account to test (defaults to 'All') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating operation, and 'Tests' is consistent with that. The description adds that it checks existence and properties, but it does not disclose the return semantics (boolean vs. error vs. object) or what 'specific properties' means, which matters for a test tool. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the vagueness noted in other dimensions.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what a 'test' returns, and it does not. For a tool whose whole value is the test result, the absence of return-value semantics leaves an agent unable to interpret or rely on the outcome.
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 both identity and accountType are fully documented in the schema itself, including the enum values and the format example. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a verb ('Tests') and a resource ('Sitecore user'), so the general purpose is inferable. However, 'has specific properties' is vague about what is actually being checked, and the description never distinguishes this tool from the sibling security-get-user, which reads similar data. There is also mild tension between the name ('account') and the text ('user') even though accountType allows Role.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative is named despite security-get-user and security-test-item-acl existing as close siblings. An agent cannot tell from the description when this test is preferable to simply reading the user.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.