placetel_get_webex_user_licenseRetrieves the Webex license for a specific user ID, enabling read-only checks of assigned licensing for verification or reporting.
Fetch Webex license for user. (GET /webex/users/{id}/license) 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the "Read-only." sentence simply repeats structured data. The only additional signal is the endpoint path (GET /webex/users/{id}/license); nothing is said about error behavior for non-Webex users, rate limits, or what "license" data is returned.
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 purpose then endpoint then safety, with no filler. It is lean to the point of being terse, but nothing is wasted or buried.
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 simple read-only GET with fully documented parameters and no output schema, this is minimally sufficient — an agent could call it correctly. What's missing is sibling routing guidance against the two other Webex license tools on the same resource, which is the main way a caller could pick wrong.
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% for both parameters (id as path parameter, response_format enum with default markdown), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no meaning about the id's required format (Plaćetel vs Webex user identity) or when to choose json over markdown, which is the one place it could have helped.
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 essentially restates the tool title ("Fetch Webex license for user"), adding only the REST endpoint path. The verb/resource are specific enough that an agent knows what it retrieves, but there is no differentiation from the license-mutating siblings (placetel_assign_webex_user_license, placetel_update_webex_user_license), which matters here because all three operate on the same user license resource.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this read versus the assign/update license siblings, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., a valid Webex-enabled user id). The agent must infer that "fetch" means read-only retrieval from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.