Verify customer existence by email or internal ID in TomTicket. This read-only lookup confirms whether a customer is registered without modifying any data.
Verifica se o cliente existe por email ou id interno. Nao altera dados.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer_id | Yes | Id interno ou email do cliente. | |
| customer_type_id | No | I = id interno, E = email. Padrao I. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Nao altera dados' is a useful explicit guarantee that this is a read-only operation. However, the description does not disclose return behavior, such as whether it returns a boolean, throws an error, or returns a customer object when found.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no redundant content. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a meaningful behavioral note. 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 simple existence-check tool, the description covers the basic purpose and read-only nature. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should at least indicate what the caller can expect in response, especially whether a missing customer is an error or a false result. It also does not differentiate itself from tomticket_get_customer.
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 100%, so the schema already explains customer_id as internal id or email and customer_type_id as I/E. The description only restates the customer_id semantics without adding new parameter-level detail. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 a specific action ('Verifica se o cliente existe') on a specific resource ('cliente'), and identifies the lookup keys (email or internal id). It also notes the operation does not alter data, which helps distinguish it from create/update tools. It does not explicitly contrast with tomticket_get_customer, but the existence-check semantics are clear enough.
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?
The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tomticket_get_customer or tomticket_list_customers. The existence-check purpose is implied, but there is no mention of appropriate conditions, prerequisites, or cases where another sibling would be preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.