Fetch a cached user by integer ID to retrieve stored user details from the 1E DEX platform without making redundant API requests.
Get a cached user by their integer ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Integer ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description is the only source of behavioral context. It reveals that the data is cached, implying possible staleness, and that the operation is a read. However, it does not explain cache refresh behavior, error semantics if the ID is missing, authentication requirements, or return format.
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?
One short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word is necessary; there is no filler, ambiguity, or buried caveat.
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 one-parameter read tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource, the lookup key, and implies a single user is returned. It lacks explicit not-found behavior and return shape, but given the tool's simplicity this is a minor gap. Since no output schema exists, a bit more detail about the returned user object would push it to 5.
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 coverage is 100% with the id parameter fully described as an integer with description 'Integer ID'. The description adds no further meaning beyond restating the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('cached user'), and the lookup key ('integer ID'). This clearly separates it from sibling getters like consumers_get_by_id, scheduled_instructions_get_by_id, and list operations like cached_users_list.
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 on when to use this tool versus cached_users_list, consumers_get_by_id, or other user lookups. The description is purely a statement of function; no exclusions or alternative selection criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.