Ask GorillaDesk (gorilladesk-mcp)

find_customer

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search for customers by name, company, email, or account number to quickly check if a customer exists.

Instructions

Answer: "Do I have a customer named ___?", "Find customer Smith"

Search customers by name, company, email, or account number.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "find_customer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It adds the searchable fields (name, company, email, account number) but does not disclose return format, limit behavior, or matching semantics. This is acceptable but not rich.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short, but the opening 'Answer: ...' is an unusual and slightly confusing formatting choice. The second sentence is clear and concise, but the overall structure is awkward and doesn't follow standard tool-description conventions.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple, with good annotations and an output schema, but the description leaves gaps: how query matching works (partial vs exact), what limit controls, and how results are ordered. The existence of sibling tools adds ambiguity about when to choose this one, so more context would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the 'query' parameter by listing the searchable fields, but the 'limit' parameter is left completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. Partial compensation, not full.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool searches customers by name, company, email, or account number, with concrete example queries. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_customers', which likely has a very similar purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The example queries imply usage for finding a customer when you have partial identifying information, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_customer or search_customers. The usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.

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