Summer

Find cases by customer name, email, phone, date of birth, support code, order or tracking number, vendor or Stripe ID, or message words, with status and date filters

summer_cases_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find cases by customer name, email, phone, date of birth, support code, order or tracking number, vendor or Stripe ID, or message words, with status and date filters. Returns one current workspace per verified customer (explicit splits stay separate), with the actual ticket code, all issue references, plan and run progress, orders and message excerpts. Message case_id opens the workspace; source_case_id retains the original issue. Search matches are leads, not proof of identity or completed work.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "company": "<company>",
      "environment": "<environment>"
    },
    "name": "summer_cases_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Customer name, email, phone, support code, order or tracking number, Stripe, MDI, Beluga or GEN ID, or care session ID. With messages=true, also words in customer and team messages.
`dob`	No	Exact date of birth, YYYY-MM-DD. With q, keeps only customers that match both.
`limit`	No	Default 25
`status`	No	Default all
`company`	Yes	Summer company ID
`messages`	No	Also search message text for q. Needs q.
`environment`	Yes	Environment that owns the resource
`include_test`	No	Include staff and test accounts
`created_after`	No	ISO 8601 time with an offset, for example 2026-10-01T00:00:00Z
`activity_after`	No	Cases updated at or after this time
`created_before`	No	ISO 8601 time with an offset, for example 2026-10-01T00:00:00Z
`activity_before`	No	Cases updated before this time

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, yet the description goes further and discloses the result shape: one current workspace per verified customer, explicit splits kept separate, ticket code, issue references, plan/run progress, orders and message excerpts, plus the case_id vs source_case_id distinction. It stops short of mentioning pagination, ordering, or the no-match case, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose and searchable fields first, then return semantics, then the lead-vs-identity caveat last. No filler and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 12 parameters, no output schema, and required company/environment, the description does the heavy lifting on return values (workspace-per-customer, ticket code, references, excerpts) and on how to interpret matches. Remaining gaps are minor: result ordering, limit/pagination behavior, and what an empty result means.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including q, dob, messages, status and the date bounds is already documented in the schema. The description's identifier list largely restates the q schema text and adds no syntax, precedence, or combination semantics (e.g. how dob interacts with q) beyond what the schema says, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find cases') and enumerates the exact identifier types accepted, plus status/date filtering. It is unambiguous about scope, but it never names the sibling search alternatives (summer_cases_list, summer_cases_get, summer_cases_customer_profile) so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the enumeration of lookup keys and the note that 'Search matches are leads, not proof of identity or completed work', which is a useful caution about interpreting results. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over summer_cases_list or summer_cases_customer_profile, nor any prerequisite guidance beyond the schema requiring company and environment.

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

All Summer tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.