Retrieves a specific user's preference by user URN and classifier from VCF Automation, so clients can read stored preference values.
Get a preference for a specific user. GET /cloudapi/1.0.0/users/{userUrn}/preferences/{classifier}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userUrn | Yes | (path) | |
| classifier | Yes | (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=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the REST path and repeats the read operation, without disclosing auth requirements, error behavior, or return characteristics beyond what annotations and schema already provide.
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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The REST path is somewhat redundant with the annotation title, but the overall size is appropriate.
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 simple read tool, annotations cover safety and the schema covers invocation inputs, so the definition is minimally sufficient. It is still incomplete in two useful areas: return shape is not described, and no sibling routing guidance is provided.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema formally documents both parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. However, the schema descriptions are only '(path),' and the description does not clarify what userUrn format or classifier values mean beyond the URL template.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Get a preference' for 'a specific user,' and the path template identifies the user and classifier dimensions. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as provider_get_preference or provider_query_user_preferences, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
It implicitly indicates use for retrieving a named user's preference, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. With siblings like provider_get_preference and provider_query_user_preferences present, the lack of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.