get_media_users_by_user_by_file_nameRetrieve a user's static image by supplying the user ID and file name. Access the media file directly from a user's account.
Takes in a recipe slug, returns the static image. This route is proxied in the docker image and should not hit the API in production
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | ||
| file_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.20.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add a useful deployment trait: 'This route is proxied in the docker image and should not hit the API in production.' However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what authorization is needed, or what failure modes exist.
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?
The description is short and structurally front-loaded, but the first sentence contains a harmful inaccuracy about the input. Conciseness does not compensate for a sentence that would lead an agent to submit the wrong parameter shape.
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 two-parameter GET route with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It omits the meaning of user_id and file_name, introduces a non-existent recipe slug, and does not clarify what image is being returned. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool from the description alone.
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 explain the parameters, but it instead references a 'recipe slug' that is not in the schema. The actual required parameters, user_id and file_name, are not explained at all, making the description actively misleading.
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?
The description says the tool 'returns the static image', which identifies the broad purpose, but it claims the input is a 'recipe slug' while the schema requires user_id and file_name. For a tool named get_media_users_by_user_by_file_name, this is misleading and fails to clearly distinguish it from the recipe-image sibling tools.
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?
The only usage-related signal is that the route is proxied in the docker image and should not hit the API in production. There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions other than the production routing hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.