Retrieve a customer's company and plan by customer ID, with the email address masked.
Get a customer's company and plan. The email address is masked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| plan | Yes | ||
| Yes | Masked: the local part is hidden to keep personal data out of model context. | ||
| company | Yes |
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=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact — the email address is masked — but says nothing about lookup failures, missing customers, or rate limits.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the masking note is relevant rather than filler. No wasted words, though the second sentence could have been folded into the first.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in prose. For a trivial single-parameter lookup the description is close to adequate, but the total absence of usage context and parameter meaning leaves a real gap.
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 says nothing about customer_id — not its origin, format, or whether it is an internal ID versus a public identifier. The single integer parameter is simple, but the description makes no attempt to compensate for the schema gap.
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 specific verb and resource ('Get a customer') plus the fields returned (company, plan). It is clear, but the sibling list is entirely ticket-oriented, so there is no peer tool it needs to be disambiguated from, and it does not articulate its scope relative to any of them.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives mentioned. It never says whether this is the right tool for looking up a customer referenced by a ticket, or what to do when the ID is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.