placetel_get_userFetch a Placetel user by ID to view account details; read-only, with markdown or JSON output.
Fetch user by ID. (GET /users/{id}) Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Path parameter id. | |
| response_format | No | Output format: 'markdown' (human-readable, default) or 'json' (machine-readable). | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the appended 'Read-only' adds nothing structured data doesn't already say. Nothing is disclosed about auth requirements, behavior on a missing/invalid ID, or error semantics — the real gaps for a lookup tool.
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?
Three short fragments, front-loaded with the purpose, with zero padding. The parenthetical endpoint and 'Read-only' are slightly redundant against the annotations but cost almost nothing.
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?
A simple single-ID read with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, so the essentials are covered. However, with no output schema, the description never hints at what a 'user' record contains, leaving the agent unable to predict the response shape.
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%, including the enum for response_format, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no additional detail on what 'id' refers to (internal user ID vs. SIP/Webex ID) or how response_format changes output.
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 and resource ('Fetch user by ID') and even pins the underlying endpoint (GET /users/{id}). It is clear what the tool does, but with siblings like placetel_get_sip_user, placetel_get_webex_user, placetel_get_me and placetel_list_users, it never clarifies which kind of 'user' this returns.
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 on when to use this versus placetel_list_users (to find an ID) or placetel_get_me (for the caller's own record). The agent is left to infer routing from the name alone, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.