Retrieve full profile properties for a specific SAP BusinessObjects user ID to inspect roles, settings, and account details for administration and troubleshooting.
Retrieves full profile properties of a specific user ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but 'retrieves' clearly signals a read-only operation and 'full profile properties' indicates the scope is the complete record rather than a partial projection. It says nothing about required permissions, behavior for an unknown/invalid user_id, or rate limits, so it is adequate but thin for a no-annotation 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, which reduces the burden. However, for a tool sitting among many user-related siblings, the description omits selection guidance and any error behavior for an unknown ID, leaving gaps an agent would want covered.
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, and it only identifies the parameter semantically as 'a specific user ID' without specifying the expected format (numeric ID, login name, GUID, etc.). That is a real gap, though the identifier's meaning is at least conveyed.
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 (retrieves) and resource (full profile properties of a user), and the phrase 'a specific user ID' implies single-record lookup, which contrasts implicitly with the list-oriented sibling get_users. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from siblings like get_user_groups or get_users, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (get_users for lists, get_user_groups for group membership). The agent must infer the context 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.