users_getFetch a Redmine user by ID or 'current' to view account details, with optional memberships and groups included.
Returns one user by id, with optional membership and group data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | User id, or "current" for the signed-in user. | |
| include | No | Associated data: memberships, groups. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what data can be returned (memberships, groups), but omits error behavior for unknown ids and any permission requirements.
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, cardinality and payload scope land immediately.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value; it does so only at a high level ('one user ... with optional membership and group data') without shape or null/missing-user behavior. Adequate for a simple lookup but not thorough.
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 the schema already documents both id (including the 'current' alias) and include. The description's mention of 'optional membership and group data' loosely restates include without adding format or value guidance, so baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Returns one user by id') and the optional payload scope. This distinguishes it implicitly from users_list, but it never names or contrasts the closest sibling, users_get_current, which also returns a single user.
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 at all. The agent must infer that 'by id' excludes the current-user case handled by users_get_current, and nothing explains when to pass include versus calling users_list instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.