Retrieve a user's full profile by providing their user ID. Returns user data or an error if not found.
Get a specific user's full profile by user ID.
Params:
user_id (str, required): the user's ID
Returns: {data: user|null} or {error:...}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return shape including null and error cases, but does not mention authentication, permissions, or rate limits. Some behavioral context is provided.
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 extremely concise: a clear one-sentence purpose, a compact param list, and a return format. Every element serves a purpose and it is front-loaded with the action.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description adequately covers purpose, parameter, and return format. It omits usage context among siblings but that is not critical for a straightforward getter.
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%, but the description compensates by listing the required user_id with type and a brief description. While minimal, it does clarify the parameter's purpose beyond the schema.
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 clearly states 'Get a specific user's full profile by user ID', identifying the action, target, and lookup method. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_user_by_email or search_user.
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 implied: if you have a user ID, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternative lookup methods or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.