get_customersSearch customers by name or email to locate accounts and retrieve customer records from your OpenCart store. Filter results to find the right customer quickly.
Search customers by name or email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| search | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does 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 state that this is a read-only lookup, whether results are paginated, how matching works, or what happens with an empty search string.
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 no filler. However, brevity here contributes to the under-specification rather than being purely a virtue.
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 described, but the tool has no annotations, no documented params in the schema, and no usage guidance, so an agent lacks enough context to invoke it confidently.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'search' matches against name or email, which adds real meaning, but the 'limit' parameter (default 20) is left entirely unexplained.
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 (Search) and resource (customers) plus the two searchable fields. It is clear enough to distinguish from update_product or get_orders siblings, though it never explicitly names 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?
No guidance on when to use this versus other retrieval tools (query, run_sql, get_orders). Usage is only implied by the word 'Search' and the named fields.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.