fortimail.users.getRetrieve a single FortiMail user by domain and user mkey from the FortiMail Engine API. Use it to look up user details without modifying data.
Purpose: Fetch one user (GET /v1/domains/{domain}/users/{key}).
Inputs: domain; key — user mkey.
Side effects: None (read-only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | User mkey | |
| domain | Yes | Domain name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'Side effects: None (read-only)' merely restates these, adding no new behavioral context such as auth needs, rate limits, or error handling.
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?
Three labeled sections (Purpose, Inputs, Side effects) front-load the purpose with zero filler. Every line is useful and the structure is immediately scannable.
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 two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, inputs, and side effects. It omits return value details, but with no output schema and a get operation, the core requirement for correct invocation is met.
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% and both parameters are documented in the schema. The description lists 'domain' and 'key' but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.
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 specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one user'), with the exact REST endpoint. The singular 'one user' inherently distinguishes it from sibling fortimail.users.list and from create/update/delete operations.
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 guidance is given on when to choose this over fortimail.users.list or other user-related endpoints. Only inputs and side effects are listed; no when-to-use or exclusion conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.