Retrieves the identity management client for the authenticated Contabo user via GET /v1/users/client, returning client details for API user operations.
Get client [GET /v1/users/client] Get idm client.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x-trace-id | No | Identifier to trace group of requests. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds only the HTTP verb and path, which is marginal context and says nothing about scope, auth requirements, or what a returned client object contains.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, but the second sentence ('Get idm client') is a near-tautological restatement of the first and the bracketed endpoint duplicates the title. Nothing is wasted on length, yet little of value is delivered.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must convey what is returned, and it does not: it never says what an 'idm client' is, whether it returns one object or many, or how it relates to the user resource in the path. For a retrieval tool with no return documentation this is a real gap.
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?
There is a single optional parameter (x-trace-id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about it, but baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.
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 verb (get) and a resource (idm client) plus the raw endpoint GET /v1/users/client, so the basic action is inferable. However, "client" is never defined and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like retrieve_user, retrieve_user_list, or list_user_accounts, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool is mentioned. The agent gets no signal for choosing this over retrieve_user or generate_client_secret, which share the 'client' vocabulary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.