Retrieve detailed information for a specific customer by ID, optionally including related data, within inFlow Inventory.
Get detailed information about a specific customer
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Related data to include | |
| customerId | Yes | The customer ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0-alpha.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say this is a read-only lookup, what 'detailed information' actually comprises, whether related data expansion has performance cost, or what happens with an unknown customerId.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized but so terse that it defers entirely to the name and schema.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate by describing what details are returned and how the include parameter behaves. It says nothing, leaving the agent unable to predict the response shape.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (though the 'include' description is itself thin). The tool description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('get') and resource ('customer') with scope implied by 'specific customer', which distinguishes it from list_customers. However it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling set (get_vendor, get_sales_order, etc.), so an agent gets no help beyond the name.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer list_customers, and no prerequisites. Usage can only be inferred from the name and the required customerId.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.