customer_cardRetrieve a Booksy Biz client's full card by customer ID, including contact details, notes, tags, visit counts, and spending totals for history review.
Full client card: contact data, notes, tags, visit and spending counters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| customerId | Yes | Client id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral — notably it never mentions the local cache or what the 'fresh' flag changes, even though caching is a real behavioral trait of this call.
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 front-loaded sentence fragment with zero filler; the content list is the most useful part and comes first. It is terse to the point of being a label rather than a sentence, but nothing is wasted.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate: it says what the card contains. It leaves out caching behavior and whether the call can fail for unknown ids, but those gaps are minor given the structured fields available.
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%, so customerId and fresh are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline case rather than an added-value case.
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 names the resource (a single 'full client card') and enumerates its contents — contact data, notes, tags, visit and spending counters — which implicitly differentiates it from the plural sibling customer_cards. It lacks an explicit verb ('retrieve') but an agent can still identify the operation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many related siblings such as customer_cards (list), customer_visit_history, customer_product_history, or customer_tags. The choice is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.