Search customers across Shopify stores using cursor pagination. Specify a query, page size, and store to fetch results while respecting protected-data permissions.
Search customers with cursor pagination. Shopify protected-data permissions apply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | ||
| first | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| store | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds meaningful extras beyond those annotations by mentioning Shopify protected-data permissions and cursor pagination, giving an agent useful operational context.
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 filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the permission caveat is stated efficiently. Every sentence earns 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?
For a simple paginated list/search tool, the description and annotations cover safety and basic purpose well. However, without an output schema and with sparse parameter documentation, an agent still has to infer several operational details such as query syntax, cursor handling, and store requirements.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It only broadly implies cursor pagination and search behavior from 'after', 'first', and 'query', but it does not explain the store parameter, query syntax, cursor format, or parameter relationships, leaving important semantics to inference.
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 action, 'search', a specific resource, 'customers', and the pagination mechanism. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools by resource, even without explicitly naming an alternative.
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?
Usage context is implied: use it to search or list customers. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative, and the protected-data note only signals a precondition rather than tool selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.