Retrieve a mail user or mailbox by its ID to get account details from ISPConfig. Use this to access specific mail account information when managing email configurations.
Get a mail user/mailbox by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | Mail user ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' conveys a read-only, side-effect-free operation, but the description does not mention response format, missing-ID behavior, or permission requirements. This is adequate but not detailed.
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 a single compact sentence with no filler or redundant information. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 lookup with no nested objects or output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The main missing piece is explicit detail about the return value or error behavior, but the tool's purpose and invocation requirements are clear.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, documenting user_id as 'Mail user ID'. The description's 'by ID' merely reinforces the schema without adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 specific action ('Get'), a precise resource ('mail user/mailbox'), and the lookup mechanism ('by ID'). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling mutation tools like mail_user_add, mail_user_update, and mail_user_delete.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The read vs. mutation split is implied by the verb and sibling names, but the description itself does not articulate it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.