payping_get_customerRetrieve one PayPing customer by code to access name, contact details, address, national ID, and memo.
One customer by code: name, contact details, address, national id, memo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a lookup is keyed on a code and enumerates returned fields, but says nothing about authentication, what happens on an unknown code, 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?
A single front-loaded fragment with no filler; the key constraint (lookup by code) comes first. Slightly under-specified rather than padded, which is the better failure mode here.
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 the returned-field enumeration is redundant and the description need not explain returns. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage that is close to sufficient, but the absence of any routing to payping_list_customers 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%, so the description carries the burden for the single 'code' parameter. 'By code' establishes that the parameter is the customer identifier rather than, say, a name or phone number, but adds no format, source, or length guidance beyond the schema's constraints.
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?
Names a specific resource (customer) and the retrieval key (code), and 'One customer by code' implicitly contrasts with the sibling payping_list_customers by signalling a single-record fetch. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the single-vs-list distinction.
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 statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of payping_list_customers as the alternative for enumerating customers. The phrase 'by code' is the only hint about when this tool applies, which is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.