Reads Netlify user account details through a read-only operation, letting agents fetch profile information without modifying any data.
Select and run one of the following Netlify read operations (read-only) get-user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selectSchema | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / selectSchema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / selectSchema / properties / params / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description's '(read-only)' merely repeats structured data. It adds no behavioral context such as auth requirements, rate limits, or what the operation returns, leaving the annotation-covered surface as the only source of truth.
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?
A single short sentence with no waste, which is appropriate for a thin wrapper. However, the 'one of the following' construction implies a list that never materializes, making the front-loaded information slightly less crisp than it could be.
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 a nested parameter object, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should explain the wrapper fields and expected result. It instead supplies only the operation name, leaving an agent to infer how to populate 'params' and the metadata fields.
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 0% and the schema is a nested object with 'selectSchema.operation', 'params', 'aiAgentName' and 'llmModelName' keys. The description names the operation value ('get-user') but says nothing about the wrapper fields or what params the operation accepts, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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 specific verb+resource ('read operations' on 'user' services) and names the single operation 'get-user', which lets an agent distinguish it from the deploy/team/project/extension siblings. The phrasing 'one of the following' is slightly muddled since only one operation is listed, but the intent is clear.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling readers, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is the parenthetical '(read-only)', which is a safety note rather than routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.