Retrieve detailed information for a specific OpenWISP user by ID to check account details, roles, and authentication data.
[Category: Users & Auth] Retrieve detailed information for a specific OpenWISP user by ID. (HTTP GET /api/v1/users/user/{id}/)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | UUID or ID of the user |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey the non-mutating nature via 'Retrieve' and the explicit 'HTTP GET' endpoint, which signals a read-only, idempotent operation, but it says nothing about auth/permission requirements or error behavior for a missing user.
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?
Two tight clauses with the category tag and endpoint in parentheses; the core purpose is front-loaded and there is no padding. Slight redundancy between 'by ID' and the endpoint's {id} placeholder.
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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly. It does not need to describe return values, and its only gap is the absence of any usage contrast with sibling user tools.
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% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented as 'UUID or ID of the user'. The description's 'by ID' adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Retrieve') plus resource ('user') and scope ('by ID'), which clearly distinguishes it from the unbounded sibling openwisp_list_users. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It never contrasts itself with openwisp_list_users or the other user siblings (create/delete), leaving the agent to infer that 'get by known ID' is the trigger condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.