Retrieve all customers from your Wave account to access client information for invoicing and account management.
List all customers from Wave
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_customers"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does convey that this is a read-only listing operation with no filtering ('all customers'), which is useful. However, it omits details such as pagination, result limits, ordering, or response shape.
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?
A single sentence with no wasted words. The key scope information ('all') is front-loaded immediately after the verb, making the description immediately actionable.
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 zero-parameter list operation, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what is listed and where it comes from. The absence of output schema and pagination notes is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The word 'all' adds mild value by reinforcing that the operation takes no filtering parameters.
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 states a specific action ('List'), a clear resource ('customers'), an explicit scope ('all'), and the source system ('Wave'). It is easily distinguished from the sibling invoice-focused tools like list_invoices and get_invoice.
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 use when an agent needs the full set of customers from Wave. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but there are no customer-specific siblings that would create real ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.