chargebee_get_customerGet complete customer profile by ID. Returns name, email, address, payment methods, subscription count, and account status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _site | Yes | Chargebee site name | |
| _apiKey | Yes | Chargebee API key | |
| customer_id | Yes | Customer ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer | Yes | Customer profile including name, email, address, payment methods, subscriptions |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "customer": {
+ "description": "Customer profile including name, email, address, payment methods, subscriptions",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "customer"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-chargebee-api-key",
+ "_site": "mycompany",
+ "customer_id": "cust_00123456789"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description's listing of returned fields (name, email, etc.) adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations.
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?
Two crisp sentences: first states the action and resource, second enumerates return fields. No wasted words.
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 annotations covering safety, schema covering parameters, and an output schema presumably detailing return structure, the description succinctly captures the tool's purpose and output, leaving no critical gaps.
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 each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what is already provided.
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 ('Get') and resource ('complete customer profile') and distinguishes from sibling tools like chargebee_get_subscription and chargebee_list_customers by focusing on a single customer by ID.
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 when a customer ID is available and full profile is needed, but does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when not to use this tool.
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.