lemonsqueezy_get_customerGet a single customer by id. API: GET /customers/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Comma-separated related resources to sideload (JSON:API include=), e.g. 'store,variant'. | |
| customer_id | Yes | Customer id (required). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint, confirming a GET request, which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., what happens if the customer does not exist). Since the annotation already signals safety, the description adds minimal new behavioral information.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that immediately convey the purpose and the API endpoint. There is no redundant or unnecessary information.
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 read-only tool with only two parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. The 'include' parameter is documented in the schema, and the description implicitly covers the core operation. It could mention the return structure, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description itself does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond implying 'by id' for customer_id. While this does not add value beyond the schema, it does not detract. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema documentation.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'a single customer', and the retrieval criterion 'by id'. It also includes the API endpoint, which adds specificity. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools (e.g., lemonsqueezy_list_customers).
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the list_customers tool. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.
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 targets a distinct resource and action (get vs list for each entity, plus specific write operations). Filtering parameters further distinguish list tools. No overlapping purposes.
All tools follow a consistent `lemonsqueezy_action_resource` pattern using lowercase and underscores. Actions are consistently get, list, create, cancel, or update.
18 tools cover a broad set of resources (customers, orders, stores, subscriptions, discounts, license keys, prices, products, invoices, variants, checkouts) for a comprehensive e-commerce platform. Each tool earns its place.
While reading (list/get) is well-covered for most resources, creation and deletion are missing for many core entities (customers, products, orders, etc.), which may force agents to rely on external processes. Only subscriptions and checkouts have write support.