Retrieve a user's photo from Brivo by providing their user ID. If the response is not JSON, the tool reports its content-type and size instead of raw bytes.
Get a user's photo. Brivo doesn't document this response's content-type - if it comes back as a non-JSON (likely image) response, this reports its content-type and size rather than the raw bytes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | The Brivo user id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the response may be non-JSON, and the tool returns content-type and size instead of raw bytes. This is real disclosure beyond annotations, though permissions/error behavior are unstated.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the second sentence earns its length by explaining the unusual response behavior. No filler, though the second clause is slightly convoluted.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return, and it does so by clarifying that non-JSON responses yield content-type and size rather than bytes. Minor gaps remain about what a successful JSON response contains and error handling.
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 (userId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.
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 ('Get a user's photo'), which is clearly distinct from sibling reads like Get_user or Get_user_suspended_status. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by the resource name, but there is no explicit guidance about when to call this vs. Get_user (which may already embed photo info) or any prerequisites/limits. Only the response-behavior note adds context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.