Fetches a single MySQL database user from a specified Cloud DB cluster. Returns user details by cluster and user name.
Get one DB user (GET /mysql/v1/clusters/{clusterName}/users/{userName}).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userName | Yes | ||
| clusterName | Yes | Cluster name (3-30 chars, lowercase letters/digits/'-', no leading or trailing '-'; immutable after creation) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses that this is a read-only operation. The description adds the HTTP method and path, which is some behavioral context, but it does not disclose any additional behaviors like error conditions, response format, or any limitations. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds minimal value beyond that.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous content. It efficiently states the core function and the REST path. There is no waste, making it appropriately concise.
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 simple get operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., user details) or any potential errors, nor does it mention any prerequisites like cluster existence. Given the tool's simplicity, more could be said about expected output or usage context.
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 schema already provides a description for clusterName, but userName has only a pattern. The description does not add any meaning to either parameter, only repeating them in the endpoint path. With 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the missing userName explanation but does not, leaving userName's purpose implicit.
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 the tool's purpose: 'Get one DB user' with the specific REST endpoint. It differentiates from sibling tools like ncloud_serverless_list_users by emphasizing 'one' versus a list. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool, so it's clear but not fully explicit about the distinction.
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 ncloud_serverless_create_user or ncloud_serverless_list_users. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring an existing cluster, or when to prefer this over other get operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.