Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bluebonnet-sales

bluebonnet-sales

by hostedinthebarn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

top_customers

Read-only

Identify customers who spent the most, optionally within a start and end date, to analyze top buyers and revenue concentration.

Instructions

The customers who spent the most, optionally between two dates (YYYY-MM-DD).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "top_customers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNo9999-12-31
limitNo
startNo0000-01-01

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are ranked by spend descending, but it does not say what 'spent' aggregates (order totals? net of refunds?), how ties are broken, or what the default result count is.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with no waste; the core purpose is front-loaded and the format hint is tucked into a parenthetical.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema covers return values, so that need not be explained. However, with three undocumented-in-schema parameters, the missing limit semantics and the undefined spend metric leave real gaps for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does explain that start/end are an optional date pair in YYYY-MM-DD format, which is genuine added meaning. It says nothing about the limit parameter, leaving one of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource and the ranking criterion precisely (customers ordered by spend) and notes the optional date range. It lacks any differentiation from siblings, though among list_tables/describe_table/run_query/sales_summary the intent is largely self-evident.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no indication of when to pick this over sales_summary or run_query, no prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. The word 'optionally' hints that the date filter is not required, but nothing more.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools