mcp_get_user_meta

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read via the verb 'Get'. It does not disclose permissions required, whether meta values are serialized/unserialized, or what happens for an invalid user id.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool whose return shape is undocumented.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe what 'meta data' is returned (key/value pairs, format, possibly sensitive fields), but it does not. For a data-retrieval tool with no annotations, this leaves a meaningful 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id, site) are already documented in the schema, and the site param even cross-references list_sites. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (meta data for a user), which clearly identifies the operation and implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling mcp_update_user_meta. However, 'meta data' is generic and the description never explicitly routes the agent away from the update counterpart.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite for the required site/id pair, and no mention of alternatives such as mcp_update_user_meta or mcp_get_user. The agent must infer context 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.