Create a new customer record with name, contact info, and currency. Enables assigning invoices and estimates to that customer.
Create a new customer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| No | |||
| phone | No | ||
| currency_id | No | Defaults to 1 (the company's base currency). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description adds no behavioral context. It does not disclose whether duplicate customers are allowed, whether permissions are required, what happens on creation, or what the response contains. For a mutation-style tool, this is a notable gap.
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 extremely concise with no filler words. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, providing a bare operational statement without the additional context needed for a 4-parameter tool.
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?
Given that there is no output schema, minimal annotations, and low parameter schema coverage, the description leaves too much unstated. The agent is left without guidance on required parameters, parameter semantics, side effects, or expected return values.
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 only 25%, with only currency_id documented. The description does not compensate by explaining the meaning or constraints of the required name parameter, nor email and phone. It adds essentially no parameter-level information beyond the property names already in the schema.
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 verb ('create') and a specific resource ('customer'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_customer, update_customer, and delete_customer, as well as create_invoice and create_estimate. It is unambiguous about what action this tool performs.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_customer or get_customers. It provides no context about prerequisites, workflow positioning, or scenarios where another customer-related tool would be preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.