list_customersSearch Medusa customers by name, email, company, or account type. Paginate results with limit and offset to find registered users or guests.
Searches customers by name, email or company.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Full-text search – name, email, company | |
| No | |||
| limit | No | Number of records (max 200) | |
| offset | No | Records to skip (pagination) | |
| has_account | No | true = registered, false = guests |
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 nothing beyond them: no mention of pagination limits, default result count, whether results are capped, or what happens with an empty query.
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 tight sentence with no waste, but it is so brief that it omits information the agent would find useful. Conciseness is good; completeness suffers as a result.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description should at least note pagination and the guest/registered filter. It gestures at searchable fields but leaves the tool's result and filtering behavior underspecified.
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 80%, so the schema already documents q, limit, offset, and has_account. The description's 'name, email or company' merely restates q's schema text and omits any mention of the has_account filter or pagination controls, adding no new meaning.
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?
The description gives a specific verb (searches) and resource (customers) plus the facets it queries, which distinguishes it from the singular get_customer sibling. The verb 'searches' is slightly at odds with the name 'list_customers', but intent is clear.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs get_customer or list_orders, and no statement of prerequisites or default behavior. The agent must infer that this is the browse/search entry point from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.