Look up a FreeIPA user by UID (login name) to retrieve detailed account attributes and identity information.
Get detailed information about a specific FreeIPA user by their UID (login name).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | The UID (login name) of the user to retrieve |
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 burden. 'Get detailed information' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is accurate, but it does not disclose error behavior, required privileges, or what specific fields will be returned. Minimal but not misleading.
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, resource, and identifying parameter are all included, and every word contributes to the meaning.
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 one-parameter lookup the description is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool. However, with no output schema, the phrase 'detailed information' is vague about what user attributes the agent should expect, and no error or edge-case context is provided.
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?
The schema already fully documents the only parameter, uid, with 100% description coverage. The description's mention of 'UID (login name)' essentially repeats the schema and adds little semantic value beyond it.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('detailed information about a specific FreeIPA user'), and the identifying key ('by their UID (login name)'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_users and get_group.
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 phrase 'a specific FreeIPA user by their UID' makes clear this is for retrieving one known user rather than listing or modifying users. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_users or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.