Retrieve a customer's profile and 10 most recent tickets by email. Use this first to personalize support replies.
Look up a customer by email. Returns their profile (name, plan, signup date) and their 10 most recent tickets. Call this first for every ticket so your reply reflects who the customer is.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Customer email address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation and expected return data (profile and 10 recent tickets), and implies a read-only lookup. It stops short of describing not-found behavior or response format details, but there are no contradictions and the main behavior is clear.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first defines function and return contents, the second gives actionable workflow guidance. Every sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema or annotations, the description provides the return shape, the triggering workflow, and the reason for use. Nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.
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 100%, and the only parameter 'email' is already described in the schema. The description adds that lookup is by email, but no additional format, normalization, or example details beyond the schema.
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?
Description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Look up a customer by email') and enumerates the exact return contents (profile fields plus 10 recent tickets). This clearly differentiates it from sibling ticket, category, and reply tools.
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?
It gives an explicit trigger: call this first for every ticket so replies reflect the customer. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but there is no similar lookup sibling, and the instruction provides clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.