Fetch a user's details from Follow Up Boss CRM by their unique ID. Provides the user record for a given identifier.
Retrieve a user by id. (GET /users/{id})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| extraQuery | No | Extra raw query parameters not explicitly listed above — e.g. FUB custom field filters like custom.ClosingDate on /people or /deals. Keys and values are sent as-is. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions GET, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose authentication requirements, error behaviors, return format, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 a single, concise sentence, which earns points for brevity. However, it is too sparse to be 'appropriately sized' – it omits context that would help an agent, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
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?
Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about expected responses, special behaviors, or relationship to similar tools. It does none of this, leaving an agent with only a bare retrieval statement and no additional guidance for correct invocation.
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?
Schema coverage is 50%: the extraQuery parameter has a description in the schema, but id does not. The description adds only that retrieval is 'by id', which is already implied by the required field. It does not compensate for the missing id documentation or clarify how id should be formatted or used, and it ignores extraQuery entirely.
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 specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (user by id), and includes the HTTP endpoint (GET /users/{id}) for extra clarity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling get_person tool, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_me or list_users. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without explicit exclusions or recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.