saas-alerts-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

saas_alerts_customers_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific SaaS Alerts customer by ID to access their details. Use this endpoint to quickly look up customer information for management or reporting.

Instructions

Get a single SaaS Alerts customer by ID.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "customer_id": "<customer_id>"
    },
    "name": "saas_alerts_customers_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`customer_id`	Yes	Customer ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which covers the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the basic get operation, such as error handling or return format. It does not contradict annotations, and the annotations fulfill most transparency needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single clear sentence that is immediately understandable. It wastes no words and effectively communicates the tool's purpose and scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and no output schema. The description is sufficient for the core operation, though it does not explicitly mention the return value or error behavior. Given the low complexity and strong annotations, it is almost complete, but a bit more context (e.g., returns customer object or 404) would push it to 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameter (customer_id) with a clear description 'Customer ID'. The description's phrase 'by ID' adds little beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get a single SaaS Alerts customer by ID' clearly specifies the action (get), the resource (customer), and the scope (single by ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list, create, update, and delete by focusing on retrieval of one specific customer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies this tool is used when you have a specific customer_id and need that customer's details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the CRUD sibling set. A score of 4 reflects clear context without explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server