get_user_info_toolRetrieves details for a specified wiki user by username, helping you verify accounts or gather profile information from a MediaWiki instance.
Get user details from the wiki.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Username to look up |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / username / descriptionAdded value: +"Username to look up"v0.1.4Input schema / properties / username / descriptionRemoved value: -"Username to look up"Input schema / properties / username / descriptionAdded value: +"Username to look up"v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what happens when the username does not exist, whether the lookup is exact-match or fuzzy, or any rate/permission considerations.
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 short sentence with zero padding and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of specification rather than being an example of tight completeness.
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, annotations cover the read-only safety profile, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Still, for a lookup tool nothing is said about missing-user behavior or the exact-match nature of the username, leaving a modest gap.
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 coverage is 100% with a single well-documented 'username' parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra meaning such as case sensitivity, exact-match requirements, or accepted formats, which is the expected baseline of 3.
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 ('Get user details from the wiki'), so an agent knows it retrieves information about a wiki user. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as list_user_contributions_tool or get_site_info_tool, and 'details' remains vague about what fields are returned.
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 tool versus alternatives like list_user_contributions_tool, nor any stated prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.