payping_list_customersList saved customers with pagination or search, returning code, name, phone, email, business name, and total count.
List saved customers (code, name, phone, email, business name) with the total count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Items to return, 1-50. | |
| offset | No | Skip this many items (paging). | |
| search | No | Text to search for. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Items to return, 1-50 (PayPing's maximum is 50)."New value: +"Items to return, 1-50."Input schema / properties / limit / titleRemoved value: -"Limit"Input schema / properties / offset / titleRemoved value: -"Offset"Input schema / properties / search / titleRemoved value: -"Search"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"payping_list_customersArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "payping_list_customersDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful return-content context (the fields and total count), which is valuable because there is no output schema, but it does not explain pagination behavior, search semantics, or what 'total count' represents. This is a modest addition beyond annotations, consistent with a 3.
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 sentence that packs the essential purpose and return content without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
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?
For a list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description partially covers returns by naming fields and the total count. However, it omits pagination behavior (limit/offset) and how search interacts with the result set, leaving gaps that matter when no output schema exists.
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%, so limit, offset, and search are fully documented in the schema itself. The description mentions returned fields, not parameters, and adds no syntax or behavioral meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (List) and resource (saved customers), and enumerates the fields returned plus the total count. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like payping_get_customer (single customer) or payping_list_transactions, so it falls short of the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as payping_get_customer for a single record, nor any prerequisites or context. Usage is only implied by the word 'List', which is not enough for a 3.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.