More Good Reviews

Create Customer

createCustomer

Create Customer

Create a customer record with contact, location, and tag details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	No	City for the address.
`email`	No	Email address for the person or customer.
`notes`	No	Internal notes about the customer.
`phone`	No	Phone number for the person or customer.
`state`	No	State, province, or region for the address.
`company`	No	Company or organization name associated with the customer.
`address1`	No	Primary street address line.
`address2`	No	Secondary street address line, such as suite or apartment.
`last_name`	No	Customer last name.
`photo_url`	No	Public image URL downloaded and stored as the customer photo before the record is created. Returns 400 if the URL cannot be fetched or is not a valid image. Accepts at most 500 characters.
`tag_slugs`	No	Tag slugs to attach to the customer.
`first_name`	Yes	Customer first name.
`postal_code`	No	Postal or ZIP code for the address.
`signed_up_at`	No	When the customer signed up. Optional instant for request bodies: Unix timestamp as integer (seconds), or a date/time string of at most 50 characters that PHP Carbon can parse. For strings, ISO-8601 / RFC 3339 (for example 2026-04-28T15:30:00Z) is the recommended format in examples and client integrations. Invalid values fail validation. When the field is omitted or null, the API uses the current server time where that behavior is documented on the operation.
`location_slug`	No	Slug of an existing project location. Returns 404 if the slug is not found.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	Short code or application-level status code for this resource.
`data`	No	Response payload for the request.
`success`	No	Indicates whether the request completed successfully.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, which sets expectations. However, the description does not disclose that creating a customer may have side effects like triggering webhooks or that it returns 404 for invalid location_slug, which is a behavioral detail in the schema. Some credit for the photo_url behavior being in schema, but description doesn't add. No contradiction.

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?

The description is very brief and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences. It is concise and doesn't waste words. It could be slightly more structured but is effective for its length.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With 15 parameters and a complex schema (signed_up_at with multiple types) plus an output schema, the description does not provide enough context on return values or error handling. The description is minimal, but the schema covers parameters well. However, for a complex creation tool, more behavioral context is needed, such as what the response contains or how conflicts are handled.

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 the description adds little beyond what’s in the schema. It mentions 'contact, location, and tag details' but doesn't explain the relationship or the special behavior of signed_up_at or photo_url beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states it creates a customer record with contact, location, and tag details, which is clear. However, it doesn't distinguish from many sibling tools like createLocation or updateCustomerNotes, though the action of creating a customer is fairly evident. The purpose is clear but generic.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., location must exist), or the fact that only first_name is required, or that signed_up_at defaults to server time. The description does not help the agent decide when to use this over other creation tools.

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

All More Good Reviews 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?