Retrieve a person's detailed directory profile by user ID, including role, schools, and public information from a French school ENT workspace.
Fiche annuaire détaillée d'une personne (fonction, établissements, informations publiques).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Identifiant de l'utilisateur. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that it returns public information; it does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.
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. Every element (detailed, person, function, establishments, public information) contributes useful information. Nothing is wasted.
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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description conveys the return content (role, establishments, public info) and annotations cover safety. Missing usage guidance is a minor gap, but the definition is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.
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 single id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not mention the id or its expected format, so it adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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?
The description states it returns a detailed directory record for a person, listing function, establishments, and public information. The verb 'retrieve' is implicit, but the resource and scope are clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling annuaire_rechercher (search) by being a detailed fiche.
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, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned. The agent must infer that this is for fetching details after obtaining an id, likely from annuaire_rechercher. There is no explicit guidance on context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.