kimai-mcp-server

Get Kimai User

kimai_get_user

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific user's data from Kimai by providing their unique ID. This read-only tool returns user details in markdown or JSON format.

Instructions

Read one Kimai user from /api/users/. This tool is read-only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "kimai_get_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Kimai entity ID.
`response_format`	No	Output format: markdown for human-readable summaries, json for structured output.	markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description merely repeats 'This tool is read-only', adding no new behavioral information such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the essential purpose without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description should provide some indication of the response structure (e.g., fields returned for a user). It fails to do so, leaving the agent uninformed about what data it will receive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what is already in the schema, which sufficiently documents both parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Read'), the resource ('one Kimai user'), and the specific endpoint ('/api/users/<id>'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like kimai_list_users or kimai_get_current_user.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when needing a single user by ID, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to use list vs get), nor does it mention any preconditions or context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.