payping-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

PayPing: list customers

payping_list_customers

Read-onlyIdempotent

List saved PayPing customers with code, name, phone, email, and business name, plus total count. Supports paging and text search to find customer records.

Instructions

List saved customers (code, name, phone, email, business name) with the total count.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Items to return, 1-50 (PayPing's maximum is 50).
`offset`	No	Skip this many items (paging).
`search`	No	Text to search for.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a total count is returned, which is mild extra context, but says nothing about paging behavior 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the returned fields and the count with zero filler. Nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 no elaboration, and the description notes the fields and total count. Given the simple 3-param read-only nature, it is largely complete, missing only usage routing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit, offset and search are fully documented in the schema with ranges and defaults. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (saved customers) and even enumerates the fields returned plus the total count. It is clearly distinguishable from the singular sibling payping_get_customer, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 list tool versus payping_get_customer, payping_search, or filtering via the search parameter. 'Saved customers' hints at scope but no when/when-not conditions or alternatives are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.