Skip to main content
Glama

amberflo

by io.usefulapi

Create customer

amberflo_create_customer
Destructive

WRITE: create/register a new customer in Amberflo (id + name required; optional email, enabled flag, and traits). Optionally auto-create the customer in Stripe. API: POST /customers/.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
traitsNoArbitrary string traits (key/value metadata).
enabledNoWhether the customer is enabled.
customer_idYesUnique customerId to assign (your identifier for the customer).
customer_nameYesHuman-readable customer name.
customer_emailNoCustomer email address.
create_in_stripeNoWhen true, also auto-create this customer in Stripe (adds ?autoCreateCustomerInStripe=true).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying 'WRITE' and detailing the optional Stripe creation behavior. The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns with that. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise (two sentences), front-loaded with 'WRITE', and covers all key points without redundancy. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

The description adequately covers inputs but lacks information about return values (no output schema provided). For a creation tool, mentioning what is returned (e.g., the created customer object) would improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal extra meaning. It notes that 'customer_id' and 'customer_name' are required and mentions optional fields ('email, enabled flag, traits') but does not elaborate beyond the schema definitions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('create/register'), the resource ('customer in Amberflo'), and the required fields ('id + name required'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'amberflo_get_customer' (read) or 'amberflo_assign_customer_plan' (assign plan) by focusing on creation.

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?

The description mentions optional auto-creation in Stripe but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to add a customer vs. assigning a plan). It implies creation is the primary use case.

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

All amberflo toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action and resource (e.g., create_customer vs list_customers, get_customer_plan vs list_customer_plan_history). No two tools overlap in purpose; descriptions clearly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the consistent pattern amberflo_verb_noun with snake_case. Verbs like create, get, list, assign, explain, ingest are used uniformly, and nouns consistently represent the resource (customer, usage, meters, etc.).

Tool Count5/5

14 tools is well-scoped for a billing/metering server, covering customer management, plan assignment, invoices, usage ingestion/querying, and meter discovery. Each tool serves a clear purpose without excess.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers essential CRUD and lifecycle operations for customers, plans, invoices, and usage. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update or delete customer, no unassign plan), but the core workflows are fully supported.

Resources