Lists customers in paginated pages for read-only access, allowing agents to retrieve customer data securely through the gateway.
分页列出客户（只读）
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": "list_customers"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does state the key fact that this operation is read-only. It also signals pagination behavior. It does not mention default page size, return shape, or error behavior, but for a simple read-only list this is a minimal but adequate disclosure.
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 a single, efficient clause with no filler. Both pagination and read-only are front-loaded and directly useful for tool selection and invocation.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no nested objects), so the core behavior is mostly covered. However, there is no output schema, no mention of default pagination behavior, and no guidance relative to read_customer, leaving a few practical gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never names or explains the limit parameter. The word '分页' implies pagination, so the agent can guess that limit controls page size, but the meaning is not actually supplied by the description.
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 states a specific verb (列出/list), a resource (客户/customers), and adds the pagination and read-only scope. It is distinguishable from the sibling read_customer by plural-vs-singular intent, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.
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?
The paginated-list phrasing implies this tool is for fetching multiple customers, while read_customer likely handles a single record. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.