Retrieve a customer's basic permissions by internal ID or email. This read-only lookup returns access rights without changing data, clarifying what the customer is allowed to do.
Consulta permissoes basicas do 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Nao altera dados' explicitly reassures the agent that this is a non-mutating operation, which is valuable. However, it does not describe the response format, error behavior, or any access requirements, so behavioral coverage is only partial.
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 filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a useful safety guarantee without unnecessary detail.
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?
With no output schema, the agent has no way to know what 'permissoes basicas' includes or what the response looks like. The description also fails to clarify usage boundaries or error conditions, leaving the tool under-specified for reliable invocation despite the rich sibling context.
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%, and both parameters are already documented with clear descriptions and an enum for customer_type_id. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Consulta permissoes basicas do cliente') and resource (basic customer permissions), so an agent can tell it is a read operation for permissions. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related sibling tools like tomticket_set_customer_access or tomticket_get_customer.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use set_customer_access to modify permissions or get_customer for general customer data. The read-only sentence offers a hint about safety, but there is no explicit usage context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.