ecwid_search_customersSearch / list the store's customers with optional filters (keyword, email, name, customer group). Returns a paged collection. Ecwid REST: GET /customers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Filter by customer name. | |
| No | Filter by customer email. | ||
| limit | No | Max results per page (1-100). | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset. | |
| keyword | No | Full-text search term (name, email…). | |
| customer_group_id | No | Filter by customer group id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds useful non-annotation context – that results come back as a paged collection and that it maps to GET /customers – but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or default page size behavior.
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 tightly written sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the paging/endpoint facts trailing. The 'Ecwid REST: GET /customers' clause is marginal but cheap and helps ground the call; nothing else is wasted.
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 read-only, no-required-params list tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it does, its filters, and that results are paged. The only meaningful gap is guidance on which sibling to pick for a single customer.
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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the filter categories in parenthetical form, adding no syntax, defaults, or matching semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 (search/list), the resource (the store's customers), and enumerates the filter dimensions, so an agent can distinguish it from the singular ecwid_get_customer sibling without opening either schema. The scope statement is unambiguous.
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 phrase 'with optional filters' implies this is the browse/discovery path and its sibling ecwid_get_customer is the single-record lookup, but neither that alternative nor any when-not condition is stated explicitly. Usage is inferable rather than guided.
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.