Retrieve a single user's account details from ESET PROTECT by supplying their UUID. Provides read-only access to individual user information for security monitoring.
Get a single user by UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userUuid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation itself. It does not mention what happens when the UUID is not found, the shape of the returned user object, or any permission requirements.
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 single sentence is concise, front-loaded, and contains no wasted words. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting usage and behavioral context that would make the definition genuinely helpful.
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 get-by-ID tool, this is minimally viable: the agent can infer the basic call. But with no output schema, no annotations, and no error-behavior notes, the agent is left guessing about the response format and failure cases.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but 'by UUID' merely restates the parameter name userUuid. It adds no format details, constraints, or examples beyond what the property name already implies.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single user'), and the lookup key ('by UUID'). This inherently distinguishes it from list_users and batch_get_users, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of esetprotect_list_users or esetprotect_batch_get_users. The description gives no context for selection among the closely related sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.