Retrieve user information from GoLogin browser profiles using the MCP server, enabling efficient profile management and automation via natural language commands.
Get user info
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_user"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether it returns current user vs all users, what format the response takes, or any rate limits or constraints. 'Get user info' is too vague to understand the tool's behavior.
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?
While technically concise with just three words, this is a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful information - it's too brief to be helpful. Good conciseness balances brevity with information density, which this lacks.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'user info' means, how it differs from profile tools, what the return format is, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would struggle to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. While it doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, the baseline for this situation is 4 since there are no parameters to explain.
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 'Get user info' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_user'. It doesn't specify what kind of user information is retrieved, from what context, or for what purpose. While it indicates a read operation ('get'), it lacks specificity about the resource scope or content.
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 description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'get_profile__id_', 'get_profile_v2', and 'get_workspaces__wid__members__id_', there's no indication of how 'get_user' differs from these other user/profile retrieval tools or what specific use case it serves.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.