paystack-mcp

list_customers

Retrieve a paginated list of customers from your Paystack integration, with optional date range filtering and page size control.

Instructions

List customers available on your Paystack integration

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": {
      "perPage": "<perPage>",
      "page": "<page>"
    },
    "name": "list_customers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	A timestamp at which to stop listing customers e.g. 2016-09-24T00:00:05.000Z
`from`	No	A timestamp from which to start listing customers e.g. 2016-09-24T00:00:05.000Z
`page`	Yes	Page number to retrieve (default: 1)
`perPage`	Yes	Number of records per page (default: 50)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List customers...' without mentioning pagination, date filtering, or the shape of the response, leaving significant behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the four-parameter schema, absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks context about pagination, date ranges, and how this tool fits among siblings like 'get_customer' and 'validate_customer'.

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%, with all four parameters (to, from, page, perPage) having descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so the baseline 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 'List' and identifies the resource 'customers' with the qualifier 'available on your Paystack integration'. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like 'list_products' and 'create_customer'.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_customer' or 'create_customer'. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List', without exclusions or alternative tool references.

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