Retrieve detailed Vultr user information, including permissions and settings, by providing a user ID or email address.
Get detailed information about a specific user.
Args: user_id: The user ID (UUID) or email address (e.g., "user@example.com" or UUID)
Returns: Detailed user information including permissions and settings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the operation 'Returns: Detailed user information including permissions and settings,' which clarifies the read-oriented outcome. However, it does not address authorization requirements, potential errors, or rate-limit behavior.
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 compact and well-structured with 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every line provides useful information without redundancy.
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 retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential details: what the tool does, what input it accepts, and what kind of information is returned. Nothing critical appears missing for correct invocation.
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?
The input schema only declares user_id as a string, while the description adds valuable semantic meaning: the accepted forms are 'UUID or email address' with an example format. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'user' and clearly states the scope: 'detailed information about a specific user.' It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from siblings like user_create, user_delete, and user_get_ip_whitelist.
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 description clearly establishes the usage context: when detailed information about a specific user is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but for a simple retrieval tool the context is clear enough and no misleading guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.