Retrieve a user's corporate profile details, including department, job title, phone numbers, office, and account status, by providing their user principal name.
Retrieves a user's corporate profile (department, jobTitle, phone numbers, office, account status).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_upn | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieves' implies a read, and the field list hints at the payload, but there is no disclosure of permission requirements, behavior for a missing/disabled user, or whether the lookup is scoped to the tenant directory.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every listed field earns its place by scoping the returned payload.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description appropriately names the key returned fields. For a one-parameter read tool the only real gap is the undocumented user_upn format and missing-user behavior.
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% — the single required parameter user_upn has no schema description at all. The description never mentions the identifier, its UPN format, or whether it accepts a GUID/email, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap; only the self-evident parameter name keeps this from scoring lower.
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 (Retrieves) and resource (a user's corporate profile) and even enumerates the fields returned (department, jobTitle, phone numbers, office, account status). It is clearly distinguishable from the mutation sibling m365_update_user_profile, but does not name a sibling explicitly.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as m365_get_mailbox_info or gal_search_directory_users. The description only says what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer when to prefer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.