mariana-tek_find_customerMariana Tek: Search customer accounts by name, email or phone, as Find Customer does. Searches customer accounts by name, email or phone number and returns the matches with their customer_id. Pass customer_id to get_customer and the booking tools. Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Name, email or phone number. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with access to this app) and the fact that matches carry a customer_id, but says nothing about result caps, partial matching, or empty-result behavior.
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 short but self-repetitive: the search-by-name/email/phone behavior is stated twice in the opening two sentences, and 'as Find Customer does' is redundant with the title. Front-loading is good but a rewrite could cut roughly a third of the text.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it searches, that results carry a customer_id, the required credential, and the next tool to call. The only gap is that the shape of a returned match beyond customer_id is unspecified.
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 coverage is 100% and the single `query` parameter is documented as 'Name, email or phone number.' The description repeats those same fields without adding matching syntax, format rules, or partial-match behavior, so it does not exceed the schema's baseline.
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?
States a specific verb (search) and resource (customer accounts) and names the three searchable fields (name, email, phone), which clearly separates it from the sibling mariana-tek_get_customer keyed on ID. The trailing 'as Find Customer does' is filler that adds no distinguishing information.
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?
It explicitly routes the agent downstream: 'Pass customer_id to get_customer and the booking tools,' which tells the caller when this tool is the right entry point versus the ID-based sibling. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g., already holding a customer_id), but the workflow context is clear.
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.