Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

RazorSync MCP Server and API by Cotlet

by dev.cotlet
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List customers in RazorSync

razorsync_list_customers
Read-onlyIdempotent

List customers in the user's own RazorSync account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in RazorSync step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's RazorSync Cloud Browser. RazorSync's official API: RazorSync documents a token-based API for customers, work orders, scheduling, estimates, invoices and payments, but the token comes only from RazorSync support (checked 8 Nov 2026).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "razorsync_list_customers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description adds the genuinely important disclosure that the tool "opens nothing by itself" and returns screens, buttons, and fields rather than performing the action. It also explains why browser automation is required (the official API needs a token obtainable only from RazorSync support), which is context an agent could not infer from 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 operative information is front-loaded, but the final sentence about RazorSync's token-based API and the "checked 8 Nov 2026" date is background trivia that does not change how the tool is invoked. The title is also effectively restated in the first clause, adding length without new signal.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it only loosely does so ("screens, buttons, fields"). The core ambiguity — whether actual customer records are ever returned or only a procedure — is left unresolved for a tool whose name promises a customer listing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add and the baseline applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the call signature.

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 opening gives a concrete verb and resource ("List customers in the user's own RazorSync account"), but the second sentence reverses the expectation by saying it "Returns how to do it in RazorSync step by step" rather than the customer data itself. An agent is left unsure whether this retrieves records or produces instructions, and nothing distinguishes it from the generic cotlet_app_guide sibling.

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?

It does give a usable workflow ("then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's RazorSync Cloud Browser"), implying this is the planning step before browser execution. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use, no mention of cotlet_app_guide as the generic alternative, and no stated prerequisites for the RazorSync Cloud Browser session.

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

All RazorSync MCP Server and API by Cotlet toolsInspect
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