List customers from your helpdesk account with pagination and sorting. Fetch up to 50 records per page without modifying any data.
Lista clientes da conta (50 por pagina). Nao altera dados.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| column | No | ||
| organization_id | No | ||
| show_custom_fields | No | ||
| search_by_organization_mother | No |
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 full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: 'Nao altera dados' (does not alter data), and notes the 50-per-page pagination. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, default sorting, or what happens when pages exceed available results.
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 extremely concise: two short clauses that each add value. 'Lista clientes da conta' states the purpose, '(50 por pagina)' gives pagination, and 'Nao altera dados' provides a safety signal. There is no filler or repetition.
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?
Given six optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin to be complete. It covers the basic list behavior and page size, but lacks return value details, pagination semantics, and any guidance on how the optional filters affect behavior. It is minimally usable but leaves many important decisions to inference.
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?
The input schema has six parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning, but it explains none. It makes no mention of page, order, column, organization_id, show_custom_fields, or search_by_organization_mother. An agent must rely entirely on the schema names and enums.
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 ('Lista') and a specific resource ('clientes da conta'), and adds the useful detail that results are paginated at 50 per page. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_customer or list_customer_portfolios, but the verb-resource pair is unambiguous.
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 on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It states what the tool does, but not when it should be used versus get_customer, customer_exists, or the many other list_* tools. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or fallback tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.