find_customersLists customers in BillingEngine, optionally filtered by a search query matching company, contact names, or email addresses. Supports pagination.
Lists customers, optionally filtered by a search text that matches company, names and email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page of the list, starting at 1 | |
| query | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the match semantics of the filter but says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or ordering that an agent might need when listing.
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; the filter behavior follows immediately after the core action.
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 an output schema present the return shape need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is that paging limits/ordering are left entirely to the schema, but for a simple two-param list tool this is nearly complete.
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 only 50% – 'page' is documented in the schema but 'query' has no description. The description compensates by explaining what 'query' matches (company, names, email), which is meaningful added value beyond the bare string type.
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 and resource ('Lists customers') plus the scope of filtering ('search text that matches company, names and email'). The read/list verb inherently distinguishes it from the create_customer, update_customer, and record_payment siblings.
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 word 'optionally' implies filtering is a choice, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other tools or on prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the self-evident purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.