action1_get_userFetch an existing Action1 user by user ID to view account details; requires view_users permission and supports markdown or JSON output.
Get user. Gets an existing user. Perm: view_users.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | Provide a specific user ID. | |
| verbose | No | Skip per-item compactor. | |
| response_format | No | Output format. Default markdown. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / additionalPropertiesPrevious value: -trueNew value: +{}Output schema / properties / valueAdded value: +{}v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required permission (view_users), which is genuinely useful auth context. Beyond that it says nothing about return behavior or error cases.
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?
Three short fragments are front-loaded, which is good, but "Get user. Gets an existing user." is pure repetition that wastes a third of the text. The permission note is the only sentence that earns its place.
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?
With an output schema, full parameter coverage, and annotations carrying the safety profile, most of what an agent needs is elsewhere. The description is minimally adequate but adds almost nothing about when to choose this tool over its many siblings.
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%, with all three parameters documented in the schema including the response_format enum. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 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?
"Get user. Gets an existing user." names a specific verb and resource, so the basic operation is identifiable, but the second sentence only restates the first. Nothing distinguishes it from close siblings like action1_get_me or action1_list_users, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
The only guidance is the permission token "Perm: view_users." There is no statement of when to use this versus action1_get_me (current user) or action1_list_users (enumeration), and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.