PineBill

Create customer

create_customer

Create a new customer record. Requires at least the customer name.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_customer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Customer name
`email`	No	Customer email address
`phone`	No	Customer phone number
`taxId`	No	Customer tax ID or VAT number
`address`	No	Customer billing address
`country`	No	Official ISO 3166-1 country name, e.g. "United States of America", "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", "Canada"
`website`	No	Customer website URL
`zipCode`	No	Customer postal or ZIP code
`timezone`	No	Customer IANA timezone, for example America/New_York
`identifier`	No	Customer identifier, such as customer ID or tax number
`description`	No	Additional notes about the customer

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: the 'requires at least the customer name' line merely restates the schema's required field, and it never mentions that non-idempotent creation risks duplicates on retry, how duplicate emails are handled, or what identifier is returned.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second sentence is largely redundant with the schema's required constraint, which keeps it from being maximally economical, but nothing is bloated.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a non-idempotent mutation with 11 parameters and no output schema, so the description should carry more weight: it says nothing about what is returned (e.g., a new customer ID), whether optional fields can be supplied later, or how to recover from an accidental duplicate. For a write tool of this complexity the definition is under-specified.

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% across all 11 parameters, and the schema documents formats, max lengths, and examples (ISO country names, IANA timezones) in detail. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new customer record'), which unambiguously identifies the operation against siblings such as delete_customer, update_customer, and fetch_customer. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the verb alone is sufficient for correct selection.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as update_customer for existing records or how to check whether a customer already exists. The only guidance is 'Requires at least the customer name', which is a data requirement rather than usage guidance.

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

All PineBill 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.

Resources

Need Help?