awtomic_get_customerA customer: name, email, phone, orders count, amount spent, customer-since date, Awtomic overrides and the ids of their subscription contracts. GET /customers/{customerId}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer_id | Yes | Shopify customer id (the number in the Shopify admin customer URL, e.g. 6012345678901). A gid://shopify/Customer/… id is accepted too. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context by mirroring the REST endpoint GET /customers/{customerId}, signalling a straight API passthrough, and by listing payload contents in lieu of an output schema. It says nothing about error behavior for unknown ids or rate limiting.
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 compact sentences with no filler, and the return-field inventory is front-loaded before the endpoint reference. The opening 'A customer:' is a slightly awkward fragment, but nothing is redundant.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the fields returned, which is the main thing the agent would otherwise lack. Only the routing guidance to related sibling tools is missing.
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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented with id format and gid acceptance, so the schema carries the burden. The description only implies that customerId is a path segment via the REST path template, adding little beyond the schema.
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 (get) and resource (customer) and enumerates the fields returned, which separates it from siblings like awtomic_get_customer_addresses and awtomic_get_customer_payment_methods that target sub-resources. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus awtomic_list_customer_subscriptions or awtomic_get_subscription, and no prerequisites. The only implicit hint is that it returns subscription contract ids, which the agent must infer as a routing step.
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.