Retrieve a customer's details by ID, including contact information, revenue metrics, and customer portal URL.
Get a specific customer by ID, including name, email, city, country, MRR, total revenue, and customer portal URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Comma-separated related resources to include (e.g. 'store,orders,subscriptions,license-keys') | |
| customerId | Yes | The customer ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. Description adds the set of returned fields but no additional behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, rate limits, error scenarios).
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?
Single sentence, 19 words, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word is informative, no fluff.
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 100% schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description lists returned fields helpfully. Could mention error handling or response format, but adequate for a simple retrieval tool.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it lists output fields, not parameter details. Baseline 3 as schema carries the load.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'specific customer by ID', listing specific fields returned. It distinguishes from siblings like ls_list_customers (list) and ls_create_customer (create).
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?
Implied usage for retrieving a single customer by ID, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like ls_list_customers or when not to use. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.