Retrieve the user assigned to a Brivo credential by credential ID. Use this to identify which credential holder owns a specific credential in read-only access-control data.
Retrieve the user a credential is assigned to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| credentialId | Yes | The Brivo credential id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that - it does not say what happens when the credential is unassigned or invalid, nor what the returned user payload contains.
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 tight sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and the relationship being resolved. It is efficient but leaves no room for the extra context a lookup tool benefits from.
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 tool with no output schema, this is minimally adequate. It omits the not-found/unassigned case and any hint about the shape of the returned user, which the agent could otherwise not anticipate.
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?
Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% with 'The Brivo credential id.' already documenting it. The description adds no format, range, or lookup semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 verb+resource pair: retrieve the user assigned to a credential. It is clearly distinct from Get_user (by user id) and List_credentials, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings such as Get_user_by_external_id, leaving the differentiation to inference.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative lookup paths are named. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the reverse lookup for a credential id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.