gryzzly-mcp

get_customer

Read-only

Retrieve specific customer details from the MCP server. Verify a customer's active status or identify who manages them using their unique name or ID.

Instructions

Read one customer: whether it is active, and who manages it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No	Must be `true` to delete. Ignored when reading.
`customer`	Yes	The customer, by name or id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The customer's identifier.
`name`	No	The customer's name.
`managers`	No	The users managing this customer.
`is_active`	No	Whether the customer is active.
`created_at`	No	When the customer was created.
`updated_at`	No	When the customer was last updated.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds the returned fields but omits notable behavior implied by the schema, such as the 'confirm' flag being ignored for reads, and offers no auth or pagination context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope ('one customer') comes first and the payoff is immediate.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description needn't explain return values. It is essentially complete for a simple single-resource read, though it could note the ignored 'confirm' parameter.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (customer, confirm) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or resolution detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read one customer') and even the fields of interest (active status, manager), which cleanly separates it from list_customers and get_user. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the singular scope makes the distinction obvious.

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?

Reading one customer implicitly contrasts with list_customers, but the description never states when to use this versus the list or get_user variants, nor any prerequisite. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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