Find customers by email, name, company, phone, or customer code to retrieve matching records and support customer lookups.
Find customers by email, name, company, phone or customer code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | |||
| limit | No | ||
| phone | No | ||
| mobile | No | ||
| last_name | No | ||
| first_name | No | ||
| company_name | No | ||
| customer_code | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing behavioral. Critically, with 8 optional parameters it never says what happens on an empty call (does it return all customers up to limit=50?), nor whether matching is exact, prefix, or fuzzy — a significant undisclosed trait for a search tool.
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 zero padding — the verb and resource lead. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification given the tool's eight-parameter surface.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. But for an open-world search with eight all-optional parameters and no schema documentation, the description omits matching semantics, multi-criteria behavior, and the meaning of limit — gaps an agent must guess at.
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 0%, so the description must carry the load: it names email, name, company, phone, and customer code, which maps to roughly six of the eight parameters. It leaves first_name vs last_name, mobile vs phone, and the limit parameter unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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 ("Find") and resource ("customers") plus the searchable fields, so the operation is immediately identifiable. It does not differentiate from siblings such as get_customer or get_customer_group_customers, leaving the agent to infer which entry point retrieves a single known customer versus a search.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this over get_customer, no statement about whether at least one criterion is required, and no note on whether multiple criteria are combined with AND or OR. The field list hints at what can be searched but gives no conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.