List Shopify customers with filtering by email, tags, order count, or total spent, plus pagination and sorting.
List customers. Narrow with a Shopify search string in query, e.g. 'email:ada@example.com' or 'orders_count:>5'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variables | No | Paging and filtering. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description itself adds no behavioral context beyond filtering — nothing on pagination behavior, result size, or consistency (that nuance lives only in the schema's parameter text).
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the filtering hint immediately after. The examples earn their place by being copy-pasteable.
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?
For a read-only list tool with no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but thin. Paging and consistency behavior are documented in the schema, but the description offers no routing guidance among the many sibling list tools.
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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including qualifier lists, page size limits, cursor semantics and eventual-consistency warnings. The description's query examples duplicate rather than extend that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a clear verb+resource ("List customers") and immediately scopes it with the filtering mechanism, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the other Shopify list siblings (shopify_orders_list, shopify_products_list), relying on the resource name alone to do that work.
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?
It gives concrete narrowing syntax with two worked examples ('email:ada@example.com', 'orders_count:>5'), which is genuine usage guidance. It stops short of stating when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.