Find a user in ClassQuill tutoring data by providing an exact email or phone number to retrieve their profile details.
Lookup User
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Exact email (case-insensitive) | ||
| phone | No | Exact phone number |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| No | |||
| last_name | No | ||
| created_at | No | ||
| first_name | No | ||
| account_type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention behavior around missing parameters, multiple matches, or exact-match semantics, though it does not contradict the annotations.
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 concise but under-specified; it merely restates the tool name. It is not structured or informative enough to count as an effective description.
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?
The description leaves important context unclear, such as whether email and phone are alternatives, whether at least one is required, and what kind of 'user' is being looked up versus students, tutors, or parents. The output schema and annotations fill some gaps, but the core purpose remains ambiguous.
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%: both email and phone have meaningful descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters well.
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 is essentially a paraphrase of the tool name ('Lookup User'), providing no details beyond the name. It does not specify what kind of user is meant or how this differs from sibling tools like get_student, get_tutor, or get_lead.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_student or get_parent. No criteria, exclusions, or context are provided to help an agent choose this tool correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.