Fetch customer details using an internal ID or email. This read-only lookup provides customer information without altering data.
Consulta os detalhes de um cliente. 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'Nao altera dados' clearly states the operation is read-only, which is valuable. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as error conditions, authorization needs, or response characteristics.
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 composed of two short sentences with no redundant wording. The main action is front-loaded and the read-only clarification is concise and useful.
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 lookup tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It identifies the action, resource, and non-mutating nature. It could be slightly improved by explicitly noting that the result is a single customer's details and by clarifying the email-versus-id identifier behavior, though the schema already covers the latter.
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 documents both parameters and their meanings. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable at the baseline of 3.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Consulta os detalhes de um cliente' (query the details of a customer). It is specific enough to identify the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling customer-related tools like tomticket_list_customers or tomticket_get_customer_permissions.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when a single customer's details are needed, but there is no mention of exclusions or sibling alternatives, especially important given the large number of customer-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.