Retrieve sub-user(s) by providing a user identifier. Access specific user data from Centia services through natural language interaction.
Get sub-user(s).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "getUser"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | User identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the basic operation (Get sub-user(s)) with no disclosure of permissions, error behavior, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. The agent cannot infer authentication needs or side effects.
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 very concise (one sentence, 5 words). It is front-loaded with the core action, but it may be too sparse. An additional sentence clarifying the parameter or return type would improve it without sacrificing brevity.
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?
No output schema exists, so description should explain the return value (e.g., single object or array). It fails to clarify whether the optional 'name' parameter filters a list or fetches a specific user. The tool's behavior in different scenarios is not well-defined, leaving gaps for the agent.
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?
Input schema has one parameter 'name' with description 'User identifier' and 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which already defines the parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not enhance it.
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?
Description specifies verb 'Get' and resource 'sub-user(s)', indicating it retrieves one or more sub-users. However, it is vague about whether it returns a single user or a list, and the plural parentheses are ambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling get tools like getClient or getColumn by resource, but could be clearer.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools include other get operations and user-related tools (patchUser, postUser, deleteUsers), but no mention of when getUser is appropriate or if there are other ways to fetch user data. The agent receives no decision-support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.