get_user_infoFetches Fulcra user details, including time zone, calendar IDs, and metadata, to help agents personalize scheduling and coordinate tasks.
Return general info about the Fulcra user.
Returns user references such as time zone, calendar ids, and other metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.7Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv1.1.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / properties / result / titleRemoved value: -"Result"Output schema / titleRemoved value: -"_WrappedResult"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns user references such as time zone and calendar ids, which is useful context about scope, but it does not elaborate on response structure or any behavioral traits beyond the annotations.
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 two short sentences and front-loads the main purpose. It is appropriately sized, though the phrase 'general info' is slightly redundant with the following examples of returned data.
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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It lists a few example fields but leaves 'other metadata' vague, so an agent knows the general shape but not the full set of returned information.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusing parameter-related claims.
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 a clear verb and resource: return general info about the Fulcra user. It gives examples of the data returned (time zone, calendar ids, metadata), but does not differentiate this from sibling tools like get_fulcra_settings or debug_token_info, leaving some ambiguity about scope.
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 tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools that might also return user-related information, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.