Ask GorillaDesk (gorilladesk-mcp)

search_customers

Read-onlyIdempotent

List and filter customers by status or account number to find and retrieve the exact customer records needed for answering pest-business questions.

Instructions

List/filter customers. Prefer find_customer / how_many_customers for owner questions.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_customers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`status`	No
`account_number`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the listing/filtering behavior but does not disclose pagination limits, filter semantics, or output structure. It provides some value beyond annotations but lacks rich behavioral detail.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two short sentences, perfectly front-loaded with the main purpose and then a focused usage note. Every word earns its place, with zero redundancy or explanation of obvious facts.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With four optional parameters, no parameter documentation, and no description of the response format (despite an output schema existing), the description leaves significant gaps. The agent must guess what status and account_number mean and how limit/offset behave. The owner-questions distinction is mentioned but not clarified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, with no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description includes no mention of limit, offset, status, or account_number, leaving their meaning and purpose entirely unclear. This gives no help to an agent in constructing a correct call.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with 'List/filter customers', which clearly states the verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting that find_customer / how_many_customers should be preferred for owner questions, giving immediate differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The second sentence provides explicit guidance: 'Prefer find_customer / how_many_customers for owner questions.' This tells the agent when to use alternatives, though it does not fully elaborate on all use cases or exclusions. The context is clear enough for most scenarios.

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