Look up user details by providing an email address or username to retrieve their information.
Look up user details by email or username
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_identifier | Yes | Email address or username |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, which align with 'look up'. The description adds the behavior of looking up by email or username but does not disclose return format, not-found handling, or whether the lookup is exact. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.
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 description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no filler or redundant information.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description bears some responsibility for return values. It does not state what user details are returned or error behavior, but annotations and parameter description cover invocation. It is adequate for a basic lookup but leaves gaps.
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?
The input schema already documents the user_identifier parameter with description 'Email address or username', and schema coverage is 100%. The description essentially restates what the schema provides without adding extra meaning.
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 uses a specific verb 'look up' and identifies the resource 'user details', making the purpose clear. Mentioning lookup by email or username distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_users or get_record.
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?
The description implies usage for fetching a single user by identifier, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like list_users or search tools. It provides clear context but no exclusions or explicit alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.