Search for clients by id, name, email, uid (VAT/CUI), or telephone. Results are returned newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Client ID — returns that exact client | |
| uid | No | Client fiscal code / CUI / VAT number | |
| name | No | Client name (partial match) | |
| No | Client email address | ||
| limit | No | Maximum results, newest first (default 20) | |
| telephone | No | Client phone number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose result ordering ('newest first'), which is genuine behavioral value. However it omits whether criteria are ANDed or ORed, whether matching is exact vs partial beyond the name hint, and whether the result set is bounded by anything other than limit.
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 sentences, no filler, with the searchable fields and the ordering guarantee front-loaded. Nothing repeats the schema verbatim in a wasteful way.
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?
Covers what can be searched and the sort order, which is the core of a lookup tool with no output schema or annotations. It still leaves the agent guessing about multi-filter combination logic and whether an unfiltered call is valid, which matters for a 6-parameter all-optional schema.
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 each parameter is already documented (including partial match on name and the limit default of 20). The description restates the field list but adds no extra semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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') and resource ('clients') and enumerates the searchable fields (id, name, email, uid, telephone), making the scope concrete. It differentiates itself from the many create_/delete_/update_ siblings by resource name, but offers no explicit contrast with adjacent read tools like search_suppliers or count_records.
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 guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as search_suppliers, count_records, or report_top_clients. It also does not say what happens when no filters are supplied (implied: returns all clients, capped by limit), which is the most important invocation decision for a zero-required-param tool.
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.
