Retrieve a single team member's full profile by UUID, including name, email, phone, role, permissions, and activity data.
Get a single team member with full profile — name, email, phone, role, permissions, and activity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | User UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Get' correctly signals a read-only operation and the field list ('name, email, phone, role, permissions, and activity') previews the return payload, but there is nothing on permissions required, behavior for deactivated or unknown users, or error handling.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler; the em-dash field list is compact and informative rather than redundant.
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, non-destructive getter with a fully described schema, the only real gap left by the absent output schema is return shape, and the description partially covers that by listing the profile fields. Missing only error/not-found expectations and permission requirements.
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 coverage is 100% for the single required 'id' (User UUID) parameter, so the schema already documents everything needed to call it. The description adds no clarification about identifier format or source, leaving this at the baseline for fully-covered schemas.
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+resource ('Get a single team member') and enumerates the profile fields returned, making it distinguishable from the sibling conduyt_list_users by the word 'single'. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not.
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 singular 'single team member' implies this is the fetch-one counterpart to conduyt_list_users, so usage is inferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. needing a UUID you already have), and no statement of when to prefer the list tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.