Search Customer records by DisplayName (LIKE match).
Search Customer records by DisplayName (LIKE match).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | Search term matched against DisplayName with LIKE '%term%'. '%' is a wildcard; QBO does not support an ESCAPE clause. | |
| maxResults | No | Maximum number of results to return (default: 100, max: 1000) | |
| startPosition | No | Starting position for pagination (1-based, default: 1) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.6Input schema / properties / term / descriptionPrevious value: -"Search term matched against DisplayName with LIKE '%term%'"New value: +"Search term matched against DisplayName with LIKE '%term%'. '%' is a wildcard; QBO does not support an ESCAPE clause."v1.6.2v1.6.0v1.4.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little. It does not state that the call is read-only, whether matching is case-insensitive, that '%' is the only wildcard with no ESCAPE support (that detail lives only in the schema), or that results are paginated. For a tool with zero annotation coverage 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?
A single tight sentence with no filler, and the key scoping detail (DisplayName matching) is front-loaded. It is perhaps over-terse for the amount of context an agent needs, but there is no structural waste.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description would need to say something about what comes back (customer objects, ordering, empty result behavior) or pagination semantics; it says nothing. Combined with no annotations, the definition leaves the agent under-informed on everything except the input contract.
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 term, maxResults and startPosition are already fully documented, including the LIKE pattern and the absence of an ESCAPE clause. The description's 'LIKE match' phrasing is redundant with the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (Search) plus resource (Customer records) and the exact matching field and semantics (DisplayName, LIKE match). This clearly separates it from qbo_customers_list (enumerate all) and qbo_customers_get (fetch by identifier).
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as qbo_customers_list or qbo_customers_get. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the tool for partial-name lookups, and there is no exclusion or prerequisite stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.