Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

n8n: Get user

n8n_get_user
Destructive

Retrieve a user's details by ID or email from a specified site and optionally include role information. Use it to look up account data for WordPress or connected services.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Get user details by ID or email.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "n8n_get_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
user_idYes
include_roleNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0
  2. Removedv3.13.1
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description frames the tool as a plain read ("Get user details"), while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true. An agent cannot tell from the description whether any mutation occurs, what permissions are needed, or what a missing user yields, so the conflict is left unresolved.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the bracketed "[UNIFIED]" tag is the only wasted token. Nothing else needs trimming.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, three undocumented parameters, and a destructive annotation that the description never addresses, the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer. It should at minimum explain the `site` parameter, the `include_role` default, and the not-found behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does add one valuable clarification: user_id accepts either a numeric ID or an email address. However, the required `site` parameter and the `include_role` flag receive no explanation anywhere, leaving two of three parameters opaque.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Get user details by ID or email" names a specific verb (get), resource (user), and the lookup keys, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from the role-mutation or delete siblings, and the "[UNIFIED]" prefix adds no meaning, so it stops short of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus n8n_change_user_role, n8n_delete_user, or a list-style alternative, and no prerequisites. The only usage hint is implicit: that lookup can be done by identifier or email.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools