Retrieve the index of all operations and list of values for the BeezUP Merchant API.
The index of all operations and LOV
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": "GetCustomerIndex"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or data scope. It provides none, only stating what it is (an index) without any behavioral implications. This leaves agents blind to side effects or effort.
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?
The description is extremely short (8 words) but fails to be informative. Conciseness is positive, but under-specification harms clarity. A one-phrase description without a complete sentence or context is insufficient.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the index contains and how it can be used. It provides none of this, making the tool nearly unusable without external knowledge. Sibling tool names (e.g., GetChannelsIndex) suggest a pattern, but this description adds no context.
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?
There are no parameters, so the burden on description is minimal per the schema coverage baseline. The description does not add meaning about parameters (none exist), but it also does not mislead. However, it could hint at what the index contains, which would help understanding. Baseline 4 is appropriate given no parameters.
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?
The description 'The index of all operations and LOV' is vague and lacks specificity. It does not clearly state what the tool does—'operations' could refer to API actions or endpoints, and 'LOV' is an acronym (likely List of Values) not explained. It does not distinguish well from sibling tools that have more specific indices (e.g., GetChannelsIndex, GetOrderIndex), making it unclear when to use this general index.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetChannelsIndex or GetPublicLovIndex. The description does not mention any specific context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without cues for correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.