payping_get_customerRetrieve a PayPing customer's full details—name, contact, address, national ID, and memo—by their code.
One customer by code: name, contact details, address, national id, memo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / code / titleRemoved value: -"Code"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"payping_get_customerArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "payping_get_customerDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the returned field set, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for unknown codes, 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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the scoping constraint and followed by the returned fields. Nothing is wasted; the only slight weakness is that the field enumeration is comma-heavy rather than structured.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description reasonably compensates by listing the returned fields. Annotations carry the safety and world-access profile. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete, missing only auth/error context.
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?
Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema gives no meaning for 'code'. The description's 'by code' clarifies that the input identifies a single customer, but adds no format, source, or example beyond that minimal hint.
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 resource and scope: 'One customer by code', immediately distinguishing it from payping_list_customers and payping_create_customer. It also enumerates the returned fields (name, contact details, address, national id, memo). The retrieval verb is implied rather than stated, so it falls just short of the top tier.
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?
'By code' implies this is the single-record lookup versus the sibling list tool, so the usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites such as authentication or obtaining a valid code.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.