Retrieve customers for the authenticated tenant, using page size and page token to paginate through all available records.
List customers for the authenticated tenant. Without pageSize the API returns its default first page; pass pageSize and follow pageToken to read them all
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageSize | No | Customers per page | |
| pageToken | No | next_page_token from the previous page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / pageSizeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Customers per page",
+ "maximum": 100,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / pageTokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "next_page_token from the previous page",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a real behavioral trait: omitting pageSize yields only the API's default first page, so the agent must deliberately paginate. It does not cover auth model, rate limits, ordering, or return shape, but it surfaces the main operational trap.
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 sentences, zero filler, and the scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the pagination guidance. Nothing here is redundant with the name or schema.
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 two-param read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical gap (pagination) and tenancy scope. It leaves ordering, filtering options, and the shape of returned customer objects unspecified, but no output schema exists to relieve that burden either.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3; the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of omitting pageSize (default first page) and the combined pageSize + pageToken pagination loop, which the schema alone does not convey.
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 ('List customers') and scopes it to 'the authenticated tenant'. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but 'list_customers' vs 'get_customer'/'create_customer' is unambiguous from the name alone, so differentiation is effectively achieved.
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 second sentence gives practical guidance on how to read the full result set ('pass pageSize and follow pageToken to read them all'), which is genuine usage direction. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings or any exclusions/preconditions beyond the pagination mechanics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.