paystack-mcp

create_customer

Create a new customer in Paystack with email, phone, name, and metadata. Add customer details to start managing payments and transactions.

Instructions

Create a new customer in Paystack

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "create_customer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	Yes	Customer's email address
`phone`	No	Customer's phone number
`metadata`	No	Additional structured data for the customer
`last_name`	No	Customer's last name
`first_name`	No	Customer's first name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Create', which implies mutation, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, idempotency, uniqueness of email, or response format. This is minimal behavioral transparency for a create operation.

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?

The description is a single sentence: 'Create a new customer in Paystack'. It is extremely concise, front-loaded, and contains no fluff or redundant information. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

While the schema fully documents parameters, the description lacks information about what the tool returns (e.g., the created customer object) and any behavioral context such as whether the operation requires authentication or has side effects. Given the moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, this is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, including email, phone, metadata, first_name, and last_name. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'customer' and the platform 'Paystack', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_customers, get_customer, and update_customer. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The only implied usage is 'when you need to create a customer', which is not explicitly stated.

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