Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GPX MCP Server

GPX MCP Server

by gpxco
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Show a user

get_user
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single teammate's role plus their direct device and group grants by user ID from list_users, so you can review exactly what access that person holds.

Instructions

Show a user

Returns one teammate with their role and their direct device and group grants.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "userId": "<userId>"
    },
    "name": "get_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userIdYesThe user id, from `list_users`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by naming what comes back — role and direct device and group grants — which matters because there is no output schema; the word 'direct' usefully implies inherited grants are excluded.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the return content. The opening repeats the title verbatim, which is minor waste, but nothing else is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the essentials are present, and the return summary partly compensates for the missing output schema. It still omits behavior on not-found ids and any scope/permission constraints, which is a real gap for an error-prone lookup.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single userId parameter is documented there, including its provenance ('from list_users'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (show/return) and resource (a single teammate), and the second sentence clarifies the payload includes role plus direct device and group grants. This implicitly separates it from list_users (singular vs. collection), though it never names the sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No statement of when to use this versus list_users, no prerequisites (e.g., needing an id from list_users — that hint lives in the schema, not the description), and no note on what happens for an unknown id. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'show'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools