numeral_create_customerCREATES a customer record — this WRITES to your Numeral customer list (used for order tracking and tax exemptions). Numeral: POST /tax/customers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Customer name. | |
| Yes | Customer email (required). | ||
| is_tax_exempt | No | Whether this customer is tax exempt. | |
| reference_customer_id | No | Your own id for this customer (for reference-based lookups). |
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?
The description confirms it writes data, but annotations already include destructiveHint=true. It adds limited behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as no mention of idempotency, duplicate handling, or permissions.
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 a single concise sentence with key information and the API endpoint. However, it could be better structured (e.g., bullet points) for scannability.
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?
With no output schema, the description does not explain return values or error handling. For a creation tool, additional context (e.g., response format) would be helpful but is not strictly required given the moderate complexity.
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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 'CREATES', the resource 'customer record', and the context 'used for order tracking and tax exemptions'. It also provides the API endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling create tools like numeral_create_product.
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 implies usage for adding customers for order tracking and tax exemptions but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like numeral_get_customer for retrieval. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
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 has a distinct purpose with no overlap. Tax calculations, product/customer management, transaction recording, refunds, and health check are clearly separated.
All tools use a consistent 'numeral_verb_noun' pattern with snake_case. Verbs are standard (calculate, create, get, list, ping) and maintain predictability.
11 tools cover the core functionalities of tax calculation, product/customer management, transaction recording, and refunds without unnecessary extras.
Core CRUD is incomplete: missing lists for customers and transactions, and no update/delete endpoints. While key workflows are covered, significant operational gaps exist.