get_userRetrieves detailed account information for a specific HestiaCP user. Returns data in JSON or plain text format.
Get one HestiaCP user. Executes verified command v-list-user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | ||
| format | No | json |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| command | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the useful fact that it executes the verified v-list-user command, but it provides no further behavioral context such as authentication needs or error behavior. No contradiction exists.
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?
Two short sentences carry the full description with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the command detail is a useful second sentence.
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 read-only single-user lookup, the description, annotations, and output schema together cover what an agent needs to invoke the tool. The main missing piece is explicit guidance on when to use it versus list_users, but the operation itself is clear and well-supported.
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 description does not explain either parameter. The required `user` parameter is inferable from the sentence 'Get one HestiaCP user,' but `format` is left entirely to the schema's enum/default, which is minimally self-explanatory. This does not adequately compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.
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 and resource: 'Get one HestiaCP user.' It also names the underlying command, v-list-user, and the word 'one' distinguishes it from the sibling list_users. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 implies a single-user lookup rather than listing all users, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over list_users. There is no when-not guidance, leaving selection partially to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.