Skip to main content
Glama
hnegi01

fes-mcp

by hnegi01
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

access_management.get_user

access_management_get_user
Read-only

Fetch a specific user's details by email address, with expanded groups and role information, to support governance and access management decisions.

Instructions

Retrieve one named user by email address, in the canonical user row shape. Fetches users with expanded groups and role data and returns the record matching the provided email address. Changed in 2.0: ROLE_NAME held the display name in 1.x (that value is now ROLE_DISPLAY_NAME); GROUPS still holds the group names and is joined by the new GROUP_IDS. See docs/upgrading.md. Returns: dict[str, Any] The canonical user row: USER_ID, USER_NAME, EMAIL, FIRST_NAME, LAST_NAME, IS_ACTIVE, ROLE_ID, ROLE_NAME (the raw Sisense value, e.g. "consumer"), ROLE_DISPLAY_NAME …

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_emailYesEmail address of the user to retrieve. **Required** — this method always answers "one named user"; use ``get_users_all`` for every user.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / user_email / description
      Previous value: -"Email address of the user to retrieve."New value: +"Email address of the user to retrieve. **Required** — this method always answers \"one named user\"; use ``get_users_all`` for every user."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes further by disclosing expanded groups/role data, the canonical row shape, and the 2.0 field-name migration from ROLE_NAME to ROLE_DISPLAY_NAME. This adds meaningful behavioral context 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well structured: core action first, then behavioral detail, then version-change context, then return shape. Every sentence adds distinctive value, and there is no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Even without an output schema, the description supplies the canonical return fields, expanded group/role semantics, and a note on version-specific field naming. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the response.

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?

The only parameter, user_email, is already fully described in the schema with format and required status, giving 100% schema coverage. The description merely restates 'by email address' and 'matching record,' so it adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with 'Retrieve one named user by email address,' giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_users_all and get_my_user by emphasizing the single-user, email-based lookup.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly implies this tool is for retrieving exactly one named user by email rather than listing users. It does not explicitly name alternatives in the description itself, though the schema parameter does direct users to get_users_all for all users.

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