Zitadel MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it specifies 'detailed information' as the output, which hints at richer data than a basic list, but doesn't elaborate on what details are included, error conditions, or authentication needs. No contradiction with annotations 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('specific user'), with no wasted words. It directly addresses the tool's purpose without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., what 'detailed information' includes), error handling, or authentication requirements, which could help an agent use it more effectively despite the annotations.

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 100% with one parameter ('userId') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it mentions 'user ID' but doesn't clarify format, examples, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('specific user'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'zitadel_list_users' by specifying retrieval of a single user by ID rather than listing multiple users. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get' tools like 'zitadel_get_app' or 'zitadel_get_project' beyond the user focus.

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 usage when detailed user information is needed for a specific ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'zitadel_list_users' for browsing or other 'get' tools for different resources. It mentions the 'user ID' requirement, which is helpful context, but lacks when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisite conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.