customer_cardsList and search salon client cards by name, phone, or email to locate client records; supports pagination and cache refresh.
Lists client cards, or searches them by name, phone or e-mail with query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, from 1 | |
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| query | No | Search text | |
| per_page | No | Items per page, at most 100 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety semantics. It adds the useful detail that query searches by name, phone, or e-mail, but it does not mention caching, pagination behavior, or result format.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the primary list behavior first and the optional search behavior second.
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 simple read-only list/search tool with fully described parameters and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It could mention pagination or what card summary fields are returned, but the missing pieces are minor.
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 page, per_page, and fresh are already well documented in the schema. The description still adds semantic value for query by clarifying that it searches name, phone, or e-mail rather than just saying 'Search text.'
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 gives a specific verb and resource: it lists client cards and can search them. It clearly distinguishes list mode from query/search mode, though it does not name the singular customer_card sibling or explain how it differs.
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?
It implies when to use query (to search by name, phone, or e-mail), but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus customer_card or loyalty_cards. The usage mode is understandable but not fully guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.