OpenAPI MCP Gateway

Get user by user name.

get_user_by_name

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get user details by username, returning the account information for that user.

Instructions

Get user detail based on username.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "username": "<username>"
    },
    "name": "get_user_by_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`username`	Yes	The name that needs to be fetched. Use user1 for testing

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.2Aug 11, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / username / title
```
Removed value: -"Username"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"upstream_callableArguments"
```
First observedv1.0.0Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which cover the safety profile. The description is consistent with these annotations but adds no extra behavioral context such as return format, error conditions, or authentication needs. It does not contradict the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes to understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, read-only annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain return values or failure behavior, and since there is no output schema, the description could carry more weight, but the intent is clear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, as the 'username' parameter is fully documented with a description including a test value. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond restating 'based on username', so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'get', identifies the resource 'user', and the basis 'username', making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like update_user, delete_user, and create_user by focusing on retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions, prerequisites, or fallback tools. The context of when to choose this tool is only implied by its purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.