Retrieve the list of VPN nodes accessible to a specific user by providing their numeric user ID, enabling quick checks of user-specific node availability.
Get nodes accessible to a specific user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | User numeric ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it returns only node IDs or full node objects, whether it includes nodes accessible via squads, or what happens if the user doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what 'accessible' means (e.g., does it include nodes via squads?), what the response shape is, or any error conditions. An agent would need to guess at the return format and semantics. The sibling squads_accessible_nodes suggests a related concept, but the description doesn't clarify the relationship.
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%: the only parameter, userId, is described as 'User numeric ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies. It doesn't clarify the format or constraints beyond 'numeric ID', but the schema already covers the essential semantics.
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 'Get nodes accessible to a specific user' clearly states the verb (get), resource (nodes), and scope (accessible to a specific user). It distinguishes itself from related tools like nodes_list (which lists all nodes) and squads_accessible_nodes (which lists nodes accessible to a squad), though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
The description implies usage context: use this when you need to know which nodes a specific user can access. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like nodes_list or squads_accessible_nodes, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., user must exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.