get_customerRetrieve a Medusa customer's profile by ID, including addresses, groups, order count, total spent, and recent orders.
Customer detail with addresses, groups and order history (count, total spent, recent orders).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer_id | Yes | Customer ID (cus_…) |
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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing what is returned (addresses, groups, counts, total spent, recent orders), which is needed since there is no output schema.
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?
One tight sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter read, though the parenthetical enumeration is slightly dense.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return contents, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter read tool it is nearly complete, missing only a note about error/not-found behavior.
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 single customer_id parameter (with the 'cus_…' format hint) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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+resource (get customer) and enumerates the detail returned: addresses, groups, order history. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_customers by being a single-customer detail call, but 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: 'detail' vs the sibling 'list_customers' suggests this is for one customer rather than enumeration. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.