Retrieve a specific user's full profile by user_id, including email, username, display name, status, and timestamps. Use list_users to find user_ids first.
Retrieve a specific user by user_id. Returns the full user object including email, username, display_name, status, and timestamps. Use list_users to discover user_ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | A unique identifier for a user. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete return payload (email, username, display_name, status, timestamps), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema, but it omits behavior on missing/nonexistent user_ids (error vs empty).
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?
Three short sentences, each contributing: purpose, return shape, and the discovery path. Front-loaded with the action. No filler, though the return-field list is slightly encyclopedic.
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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, return contents, and how to find valid ids. It is close to complete, with only error behavior for an unknown id left unspecified.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents user_id fully. The description does not add format, source, or validity constraints beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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+resource ('Retrieve a specific user by user_id'), so the action is unambiguous. It differentiates from the list-style siblings by naming list_users as the discovery alternative, though the SCIM counterparts (scim_get_user, scim_list_users) are not addressed.
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?
Gives clear context for using this tool (look up one user by id) and explicitly routes to list_users to discover user_ids. There are no stated exclusions or prerequisites such as scope/auth needs, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.