get-customerReturns one authorized customer using bounded contact and lifecycle fields; addresses and notes are excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer_id | No | Customer ID returned by search-customers. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already true/false, the description adds useful behavioral context: results are authorization-scoped ('authorized') and field-bounded with addresses and notes explicitly excluded. This tells the agent what data it can expect without contradicting the annotations.
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 dense sentence that front-loads the core behavior first and appends the key exclusions. There is no filler or repetition of the title/schema.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple one-parameter read tool, but it leaves gaps: it does not enumerate which contact/lifecycle fields are returned, and the schema marks customer_id as not required, creating ambiguity about whether the tool can be called without an ID. With no output schema, those details matter.
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% because the only parameter is already documented as the customer ID returned by search-customers. The tool description itself adds no further parameter semantics beyond the singular 'one customer' cardinality, 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?
The description states a specific operation (returns one customer) with a clear resource and a bounded field scope: 'bounded contact and lifecycle fields; addresses and notes are excluded.' This distinguishes it from sibling search/list tools and from other get-* resources.
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 intended usage is only implied: a single customer lookup by ID, with the ID source given in the schema ('Customer ID returned by search-customers'). The description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over search-customers or other sibling tools, nor does it spell out exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tool families are organized by resource and action (get/search/preview/reports), so most tools have a distinct purpose. A few near-overlaps exist—customer-service-requests vs search-service-requests and the many campaign preview/search tools—but descriptions generally clarify boundaries.
The set consistently uses kebab-case with recognizable prefixes like get-, search-, preview-, and reports-, making intent predictable. A few noun-phrase tools (complaint-recall-risk, customer-service-requests, operations-parts, jobs-today) break the verb-first pattern, but they remain readable and grouped.
45 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and creates a large surface for agents to navigate, even though the domain is broad. Many tools are narrow read-only variations (e.g., five preview-campaign tools, three reports-* tools), which inflates the count without adding fundamentally new capabilities.
As a read-only/insights server, the surface covers customers, jobs, quotes, invoices, leads, locations, service requests, reviews, campaigns, operations, and reporting with both search and detail access. Minor gaps exist—no get-* for campaign types or social drafts—but these align with the intentionally bounded, safe-read model.