get_customerRetrieve one customer's full record—addresses, payment terms, VAT type, and default references—by customer number from the fortnox-mcp accounting server.
One customer in full: addresses, terms of payment, VAT type, default references.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer_number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real contribution is enumerating the returned payload (addresses, payment terms, VAT type, default references), which matters because no output schema exists. It still says nothing about error/not-found behavior or permissions.
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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the scope ('One customer in full') followed by the payload contents. No filler, nothing that fails to earn its place.
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?
Annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers the payload, so the basics are there. It is still incomplete for an identifier-based lookup: the parameter format and the not-found/error outcome are undocumented in both description and schema.
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?
The single required parameter customer_number has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the semantics. It never names the parameter or its expected format, only implying lookup by some customer identifier via 'One customer'.
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 resource (one customer) and the scope of the payload ('in full'), with a concrete enumeration of returned fields (addresses, payment terms, VAT type, default references). It implicitly separates itself from the sibling list_customers by emphasizing a single record, but never names that sibling explicitly.
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 statement of when to use this versus list_customers, get_supplier, or the other get_* lookups. The singular 'One customer' weakly implies a lookup-by-identifier use case, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.