rybbit_get_userRetrieve detailed user profiles including traits, session history, and activity summaries to analyze user behavior and journey.
Get detailed information about a specific user including their traits, session history, and activity summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteId | Yes | Site ID (numeric ID or domain identifier) | |
| userId | Yes | User ID (identified_user_id or internal user ID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature. The description adds value by disclosing what the response conceptually contains (traits, session history, activity summary) beyond the schema and annotations. No contradictions with annotations are present.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then briefly lists what is returned. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant elaboration or filler.
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 detail-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable indication of the response scope. It could be more specific about the shape or time range of session history and activity summary, but the combination of schema and general description is sufficient for an agent to call correctly.
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%: siteId and userId are both described with acceptable clarity. The tool description doesn't add any extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. It neither compensates nor needs to.
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 clear resource ('a specific user'), and enumerates the kind of information returned ('traits, session history, and activity summary'). This distinguishes it from broad listing tools like rybbit_list_users and from focused sub-tools like rybbit_get_user_traits or rybbit_get_user_event_breakdown.
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 clearly implies the context of use: when a caller needs a consolidated detail view of one user. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'specific user' scoping provides enough direction against siblings. A little more guidance on when to prefer this over rybbit_get_user_traits would push it to a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.