Retrieve customer profiles with visit history and spending totals. Filter by customer IDs or exact email address.
List customers. Filter by IDs or email. Returns customer profiles with visit history and spending totals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Filter by exact email address | ||
| limit | No | Results per page (1-250) | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from previous response | |
| customer_ids | No | Comma-separated customer UUIDs to filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully adds that results are customer profiles enriched with visit history and spending totals. It still omits pagination behavior and result-size expectations, but it goes meaningfully beyond the safety hint.
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?
Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no redundant filler; every clause carries distinct 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?
With no output schema, the description steps in to summarize the return payload (profiles, visit history, spending totals) and the filter options, which is sufficient for a read-only list tool. Slightly more on pagination or empty-result behavior would make it fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with formats and bounds (1-250, UUID lists, cursor). The description's mention of ID/email filtering merely echoes the schema without adding syntax or constraint detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 and resource ('List customers') and identifies the supported filters. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_customer, leaving the agent to infer the list-vs-single split from names alone.
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?
'Filter by IDs or email' implies the filtering use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of get_customer or list_receipts, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.