workboard_get_user_toolFetch a WorkBoard user profile by ID, or return the current authenticated user when no ID is provided.
Get a WorkBoard user by ID, or the current authenticated user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | No | User ID (positive integer). If not provided, returns the current authenticated user. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.0Input schema / properties / user_id / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]v0.7.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / user_id / descriptionAdded value: +"User ID (positive integer). If not provided, returns the\n current authenticated user."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the defaulting behavior (omitting user_id returns the current authenticated user), which is useful. However, it doesn't discuss error behavior (e.g., invalid ID), auth requirements, or response shape beyond what annotations provide.
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 that covers both modes of operation. No waste.
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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotation, the description covers the essentials. It could mention authentication prerequisites or the shape of the returned user, but those are minor given the low complexity.
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%, and the schema already documents user_id fully, including the default behavior. The description repeats that behavior, adding no new syntax or edge-case guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema is complete.
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 (Get) and resource (WorkBoard user), with the dual scope (by ID or current user). It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like workboard_get_my_objectives_tool or workboard_get_user_key_results_tool, but the resource is clear.
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?
Implied usage: omit user_id to get the current user. The description doesn't state when to use this vs. workboard_list_users_tool or workboard_get_team_members_tool, and there are no explicit exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.