Lista clientes/contatos com filtros avançados (nome, cpf, cnpj, e-mail etc. via query).
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": "advbox_list_customers"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpf | No | ||
| cnpj | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| No | |||
| query | No | ||
| page_size | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the basic listing behavior; it does not mention pagination behavior, query semantics, or result shape. There is no contradiction with annotations, but minimal added value.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the examples are useful and the syntax is clean. It is slightly under-specified for the number of parameters, but the conciseness itself is strong.
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?
With 7 parameters, a nested `query` object, no output schema, and zero schema param descriptions, the tool needs richer contextual guidance. The description only covers rough filter intent and omits pagination behavior and query object structure, making it only minimally complete.
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 0%, so the description needed to compensate. It does name some filter fields (name, cpf, cnpj, email) and points to `query`, which provides partial clarity, but it leaves page/page_size and the structure of the `query` object unexplained.
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 uses a specific verb 'Lista' with a clear resource 'clientes/contatos' and mentions advanced filtering, which makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It is naturally distinguished from single-record siblings like advbox_get_customer and from other list tools.
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 description implies usage for listing/filtering customers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain the relationship between the separate filter params and the `query` object. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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.