contract-testing_admin_get_userFetch a user's details by UUID for administrative tasks. Use it to retrieve user information from SmartBear contract testing when you need a specific account's data.
Retrieve details for a specific user by UUID (admin).
Toolset: Admin
Parameters:
userId (string) required: UUID of the user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | UUID of the user |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.40.0v0.34.0v0.27.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only 'admin' scope and UUID lookup, which is mild context but no meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.
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 opening sentence is concise and front-loaded with the essential operation and scope. The Toolset and Parameters block is somewhat redundant with the input schema, but the overall size remains compact and 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 single-required-parameter, read-only lookup tool, the description is nearly sufficient. It does not list what fields are returned and there is no output schema, so an agent cannot know the exact shape of the response, but the gap is minor for such a simple get-by-UUID operation.
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?
The input schema fully documents userId as a required string UUID, with 100% schema description coverage. The description repeats 'UUID' and 'required' but adds no additional constraints, examples, or error behavior, so it only meets the baseline.
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 action ('Retrieve details'), a specific resource ('user'), a lookup key ('by UUID'), and the scope ('admin'). This is distinguishable from sibling tools like contract-testing_admin_list_users or contract-testing_get_current_user without opening the schema.
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 'admin' scope implies this is for administrator-facing lookup of an arbitrary user, so usage context is somewhat clear. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as admin_list_users, get_current_user, or admin_get_team_user.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.