Fetch a specific Remnawave user by numeric ID to access account details for management or verification.
Get a specific Remnawave user by their numeric ID (API 3.x: uuid is gone, id is the primary key)
| 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. It clearly indicates a read-only 'get' operation and adds useful context that UUID is gone in API 3.x. However, it does not mention not-found behavior, error responses, authentication requirements, or return value shape.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the operation, resource, identifier type, and API-version nuance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 one-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the exact identifier to pass, explains the API-version context, and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool retrieves.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter is described as 'User numeric ID'. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the numeric ID is the primary key in API 3.x and that UUID is no longer used, which helps avoid misuse.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a specific Remnawave user'), and the exact key ('numeric ID'). It also clearly distinguishes this from sibling lookup tools by emphasizing that UUID is no longer valid in API 3.x.
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 gives clear context for when this tool applies: numeric ID lookup, with an explicit note that UUID is gone and id is now the primary key. It does not explicitly name alternatives like users_get_by_username, but the API-version note effectively tells the agent which identifier to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.