sef_list_customersLists customers from the local profile, returning each customer's ID, name, PIB, and default settings for Serbian e-invoice workflows.
Lists customers defined in the local profile (id, name, PIB, defaults).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that results come from the 'local profile' rather than a remote service — but says nothing about result size, ordering, or what happens when no customers exist.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and scope first and the returned fields in a compact parenthetical. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essentials: source of data and returned fields, which partly substitutes for the absent output schema. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether an empty list or an error is returned when no customers are configured.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical field list instead documents the shape of what comes back, which is a reasonable use of the space.
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?
States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('customers') plus the scope ('defined in the local profile'), and the parenthetical enumerates the fields returned (id, name, PIB, defaults). This clearly separates it from the mutating sibling sef_add_customer, though it does not explicitly name any sibling it supersedes.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the lookup to call before sef_draft_invoice or sef_add_customer, but the description never says when to use it or when another tool is preferable. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.