Find customers by email, name, or company to locate CRM records before Squidbrake allows, blocks, or holds a tool call for approval.
Find customers by email, name or company.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| justification | No | Why you are making this call, in one sentence. The person who approves it reads this; some calls need it. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.0Input schema / properties / justificationAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Why you are making this call, in one sentence. The person who approves it reads this; some calls need it.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.3.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Find' implies a read operation, but nothing states whether it is read-only, whether matching is exact or fuzzy, how many results come back, or what approval the 'justification' parameter implies.
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 efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably too terse to earn a top score, but nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a search tool the missing pieces are match semantics (exact vs. substring), result limits, and the approval context hinted at by the 'justification' parameter, leaving moderate gaps.
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?
Coverage is 50%: the 'justification' param is documented in the schema, while 'query' has no schema description at all. The description partially compensates by naming the fields the query matches (email, name, company), but says nothing about format, delimiters, or partial-match behavior.
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 verb (Find) and resource (customers) plus the three lookup fields (email, name, company), which is enough to distinguish it from the CRM mutation siblings crm_add_note and crm_update_plan. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with any sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this lookup versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no indication of what happens when multiple customers match. An agent gets a purpose but no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.