Fetch a user's full profile by ID, including optional related orders, services, invoices, tickets, credits, or role data for billing and support tasks.
Retrieve detailed profile information for a specific user by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Relations to sideload (e.g. orders, services, invoices, tickets, credits, role) | |
| user_id | Yes | The unique numeric ID of the user |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read, but discloses nothing about error behavior for unknown IDs, required permissions, or the fact that extra relations (orders, services, invoices, tickets, credits, role) can be expanded. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a real gap.
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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse to be maximally useful.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, 'detailed profile information' is vague about what is actually returned, and the relation-sideloading capability is left entirely to the schema. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.
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%, including an example list for the 'include' parameter, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds only 'by ID', which merely restates the required parameter, so the 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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('profile information for a specific user by ID'), which distinguishes it from the list/create/update/delete siblings on the same resource. However, it does nothing to separate itself from paymenter_get_user_overview, whose scope overlaps ambiguously with 'detailed profile information'.
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 versus paymenter_list_users (bulk) or paymenter_get_user_overview (apparently also a per-user summary). The inclusion of an 'include' parameter for sideloading relations is the key routing decision, yet the description never mentions it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.