chargebee_update_customerUpdates a customer's details in Chargebee. Chargebee API: POST /customers/{customer_id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Customer email address. | ||
| phone | No | Phone number. | |
| company | No | Company name. | |
| last_name | No | Customer last name. | |
| first_name | No | Customer first name. | |
| customer_id | Yes | Chargebee customer id to update. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the exact HTTP method and resource path, which is useful, but it does not disclose overwrite semantics, partial-update behavior, or side effects beyond the annotation.
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 short sentences front-load the action and then provide the precise API endpoint. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 simple update tool with full schema coverage, one required parameter, no nested objects, and a destructiveHint annotation, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the response shape or whether only provided fields are updated, but nothing essential blocks a correct call.
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%, with all six parameters already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.
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 ('Updates') and a specific resource ('a customer's details in Chargebee'), and includes the exact API endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like chargebee_create_customer and chargebee_get_customer.
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 intent of modifying an existing customer is clear, so an agent can infer when to choose this over create/get. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
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.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource-action pair (e.g., create_customer, get_invoice, list_subscriptions). The get/list distinction is clear, and there is no overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools follow a consistent `chargebee_<verb>_<resource>` snake_case pattern. Verbs are limited to create, get, list, and update, which are used uniformly across resources.
With 13 tools covering customers, invoices, subscriptions, coupons, credit notes, items, item prices, and transactions, the count is appropriate for a subscription billing platform. It is neither overly sparse nor bloated.
The tool set provides strong read coverage (lists and gets) but limited write operations. Only customer creation and updates are supported; subscriptions, invoices, and other key resources lack create/update/delete operations, making it incomplete for full lifecycle management.