get_customerRetrieve a customer's full profile including contact details, membership, marketing consent, staff notes, and recent bookings using their customer ID.
A customer's contact details, membership and marketing consent, with their staff notes and most recent bookings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer_id | Yes | Customer ID (cst-...) | |
| max_bookings | No |
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, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it returns 'most recent bookings' but does not disclose that the max_bookings parameter controls the count or its default/range. This is a partial disclosure beyond annotations but leaves a gap in behavioral expectations.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the key content. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is efficient and readable, though it lacks a verb at the start.
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?
For a read-only get operation with two parameters, the description is fairly complete in listing returned data, but it does not explain the effect of max_bookings (e.g., it limits the number of bookings returned, default 20, max 200). Since there is no output schema, this missing linkage is a notable gap that an agent would need to discover elsewhere.
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 50% (only customer_id has a description). The description mentions 'most recent bookings', which implicitly ties to the max_bookings parameter, giving it meaning beyond the bare schema (type, default, range). This partially compensates for the missing schema description, though it could be more explicit.
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?
The description clearly states what data is returned (contact details, membership, marketing consent, staff notes, recent bookings), which distinguishes it from siblings like find_customers (search) and get_booking (single booking). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch', relying on the name and title for the action.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that it is for fetching a single customer by ID, nor does it mention that find_customers is for searching. An agent must infer the appropriate use case from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.