Skip to main content
Glama
kisasa

Shopify MCP Server

by kisasa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get-customer-by-id

Fetch one Shopify customer by numeric ID, selecting only needed fields to reduce response size and prevent context flooding.

Instructions

Get a single customer by ID. Supports field selection via 'fields' to reduce response size.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesNumeric customer ID (e.g. 7832529321). Do not pass a full GID.
fieldsNoIMPORTANT: Always specify this to minimize token usage and avoid flooding context with unnecessary data. Only the listed fields will be fetched from the API and returned. 'id' is always included. If you are unsure which fields are needed, ask the user before fetching all fields. Example: ["id", "firstName"] returns only customer GID and firstName. Available: id, firstName, lastName, email, phone, createdAt, updatedAt, tags, note, taxExempt, defaultAddress, addresses, amountSpent, numberOfOrders, metafields

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' signals a read-only lookup and it notes that field selection reduces response size, but it says nothing about what happens when the ID is not found, permission requirements, or payload shape beyond size.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one non-obvious capability. No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. Error/not-found behavior is the only notable omission.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'id' (with GID warning) and 'fields' (with enum list and rationale). The description's mention of field selection only restates what the schema says, which is the correct baseline-3 case.

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?

States a clear verb and resource ('Get a single customer by ID'), and the singular framing implicitly contrasts with the sibling list tool get-customers. It does not name the alternative explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the singular 'single customer by ID' suggests this is for looking up one record rather than browsing, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get-customers or get-customer-orders, and no exclusion guidance.

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