list_customersRetrieve and filter customers from the register by name, organisation number, email, or active status. Use it to find customer records and control result limits up to 2000 rows.
Customer register. Search by name, org number or email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | Max rows to return (default 100, up to 2000) | |
| name | No | ||
| No | |||
| filter | No | ||
| organisation_number | No |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and mutability profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide — no pagination behavior, no default result limits, no ordering. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 reflects that the description adds nothing extra but does not contradict.
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?
Two short sentences with no wasted words, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Front-loading is fine, but the description is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
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 list tool with 5 parameters and 20% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations covering return format, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain default/max limits, filter behavior, or what fields are returned. An agent would need to guess or experiment to use it correctly.
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 20%, so most parameters lack documentation in both schema and description. The description mentions searching by name, org number, and email, which maps to three parameters, but it omits 'max' (partially documented in schema) and 'filter' (enum with no description). For a low-coverage schema, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter details, especially the enum filter semantics.
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 the resource (customer register) clearly, but the purpose is vague as a listing tool — 'Customer register' is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource. It doesn't differentiate from sibling get_customer, and the search verbs are secondary to the identity of the tool. An agent can infer it lists customers, but with less precision than a stronger definition.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are named. The description implies this is for searching customers, but does not state when to use this vs. get_customer or other list_* tools. No exclusions or prerequisites provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.