Retrieve a user by ID; if a service account ID is provided, returns a simplified service account view.
Get a specified user by id. If the id of a service account is specified instead, a simplified view of the service account is returned instead. Get a specified user by id. GET /cloudapi/1.0.0/users/{userUrn}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userUrn | Yes | userUrn (path) |
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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the response shape changes when a service-account URN is supplied. It does not describe error behavior for unknown URNs or what 'simplified view' omits.
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 core sentence is well front-loaded, but the description repeats 'Get a specified user by id.' verbatim on the second line and appends a raw REST route that duplicates the annotation title. Roughly half the text is redundant.
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 read-only single-parameter GET with full annotation coverage, the description supplies what matters most: the service-account branch in the return behavior. With no output schema, it could say a bit more about the returned representation, but it is otherwise sufficient to call the tool correctly.
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 100% with a single required userUrn path parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format guidance (URN syntax, where to obtain the URN) and its phrase 'by id' slightly underspecifies the URN-vs-id distinction the schema implies.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get a specified user by id') and adds a real qualifier: if a service account URN is passed, a simplified service-account view is returned. That distinguishes it meaningfully from provider_get_service_account and provider_query_users, though it never names those siblings.
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?
Usage is only implied by 'by id' – an agent can infer this is a single-record fetch. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of provider_query_users, provider_get_service_account, or provider_get_user_preference, and no prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.