More Good Reviews

List Customers

listCustomers

Read-onlyIdempotent

List Customers

Retrieve project customers with optional search, tag, sort, facet filters, and calendar bounds on a chosen datetime column.

List endpoints are paginated. Use the page and limit query parameters to paginate through results (at most 30 records per page). Check the pagination object in the response (current_page, last_page, total) to determine if more pages exist and whether to continue fetching.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Search string matching customer first name, last name, full name, email, or company. Case-insensitive partial match. At most 100 characters.
`page`	No	Which page of results to return (1 is the first page). Omit this field or use 1 for the first page. Accepts minimum 1.
`email`	No	Email address for the person or customer.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of records to return. Accepts an integer from 1 to 30.
`filter`	No	Customer list facet aligned with console filters (excluding archived unless requested).
`date_to`	No	Inclusive upper calendar date (YYYY-MM-DD) for the column chosen by date_key; must be on or after date_from when both bounds are provided.
`date_key`	No	Customer datetime column paired with date_from and date_to (defaults to created_at when omitted).
`sort_dir`	No	Sort direction: asc or desc.
`sort_key`	No	Customer field to sort by.
`tag_slug`	No	URL-friendly identifier for the customer tag.
`date_from`	No	Inclusive lower calendar date (YYYY-MM-DD) for the column chosen by date_key, defaulting to created_at when date_key is omitted.

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.
`pagination`	No	Pagination metadata for list responses.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing pagination behavior: at most 30 records per page, use of page/limit params, and how to read the pagination object (current_page, last_page, total) to decide whether to continue. This is behavioral context beyond 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening 'List Customers' line duplicates the tool title and adds no information, a minor waste. The substantive paragraph is well-structured and front-loads the purpose before the pagination mechanics, but the redundant header keeps this from being fully tight.

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?

Given an output schema exists (so return values need no explanation), a 11-parameter read-only list tool, and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential operational details: pagination limits, the pagination object, and the filter surface. It is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly, with no critical gaps.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description's mention of 'search, tag, sort, facet filters, and calendar bounds' maps loosely to q, tag_slug, sort_key/sort_dir, filter, and date_from/date_to/date_key, but adds little beyond what each parameter's schema description already states. It does not compensate for anything missing since nothing is missing.

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 second paragraph states a specific action and resource ('Retrieve project customers') plus the full capability set (search, tag, sort, facet filters, calendar bounds). This clearly distinguishes it from the other list tools by naming the customer entity and its filter options, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against.

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 implied ('Retrieve project customers') but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives is given. The description does not contrast with getCustomer (singular) or the listCustomerCharges/listCustomerMessages/listCustomerReviews siblings, nor state any exclusion conditions. The pagination guidance is operational, not usage-selection.

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?