Customer Health MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List customer accounts

list_accounts

Retrieve all customer accounts with plan, MRR, payment status, and churn-risk band, with optional plan or payment-status filters. Use it to review the customer base before checking a specific account.

Instructions

List all customer accounts with their plan, MRR, payment status, and computed churn-risk band. Supports optional filtering by plan and payment status. Use this to get an overview of the customer base before drilling into a specific account with get_account_details or get_account_risk_summary.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plan`	No	Only return accounts on this subscription plan
`paymentStatus`	No	Only return accounts with this billing payment status

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`accounts`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals what is returned and that filtering is optional, but says nothing about read-only semantics, result-set size limits, pagination, or ordering for what is clearly a collection endpoint.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return fields, then capability, then routing. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

With an output schema present, the response shape need not be explained, and the routing guidance to siblings is a genuine plus. The only gap is operational detail (pagination/limits) for a list endpoint expected to return the whole customer base.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are enum-constrained with their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that filtering by plan and payment status is optional, adding no semantics beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('List all customer accounts') and enumerates the returned fields (plan, MRR, payment status, churn-risk band), which cleanly separates it from the detail-oriented siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly frames the use case as getting a customer-base overview before drilling down, and names get_account_details and get_account_risk_summary as the follow-on tools. It lacks an explicit statement of when NOT to use it, so it stops just short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server