Fetch a single Stripe customer by ID to access billing, contact, and subscription details for finance or support workflows.
Retrieve a single customer by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer | Yes | The identifier of the customer, e.g. 'cus_NffrFeUfNV2Hib'. |
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, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations and the verb 'Retrieve' already imply, such as authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
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 the simple read operation, full schema coverage, and annotations that cover safety traits, the description is almost complete. It does not describe the returned customer object, which is a minor gap in the absence of an output schema.
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% and the single parameter is fully documented with an example. The description adds only 'by ID', which is already conveyed by the schema's parameter name and description, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Retrieve'), resource ('customer'), and scope ('single ... by ID'). It clearly distinguishes retrieval from creation, but does not explicitly name the sibling tool (stripe_customers_create) or otherwise differentiate itself from alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description implies a straightforward lookup, but gives no context about when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.