Retrieve detailed information for a specific user by providing their unique ID from the Audiobookshelf server. Use this to fetch user account data via the API.
Get api users.
GET /api/users/{id}
Args: id: Path parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP method and path structure but no additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements or response handling; 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely terse and well-structured: a one-line purpose, the HTTP route, and an args section. Every element earns its place, though 'Get api users' is somewhat redundant with the route; overall it is efficient and readable.
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 present and annotations covering safety, the description is minimal but generally adequate for a simple GET-by-ID tool. However, it could improve completeness by explicitly stating that id is the user ID and by providing usage context (e.g., prefer list_users for all users).
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%, so the description must compensate. It only states 'id: Path parameter,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify that id is the user's unique identifier or any format constraints. The tool name hints at this, but the description itself is insufficient.
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 clearly states a GET operation on 'api users' with a path parameter, implying retrieval of a single user by ID. The HTTP route and parameter distinguish it from list_users and user-listening tools, though it doesn't explicitly name these siblings.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_users or get_users_by_id_listening_sessions. The path parameter implies the agent must already have a user ID, but this is not stated, leaving usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.