list_customersRetrieve customers newest first with pagination and optional filters by email or external ID to review or manage customer records.
List customers.
Newest first; pass next_cursor back as cursor for the next page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | |||
| limit | No | How many objects to return, 1–100. Default 10. | |
| cursor | No | `next_cursor` from the previous page. | |
| external_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations do not: results are ordered newest first, and paging is cursor-based with `next_cursor` fed back as `cursor`. It stops short of mentioning rate limits, default page exhaustion behavior, or whether filters are ANDed.
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 short sentences, zero filler, and the ordering plus paging rule arrives immediately after the purpose line. Nothing here is padding.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing what a customer record contains, yet it says nothing about returned fields or object shape. Ordering and paging are well covered, but filter behavior and result contents are missing for a 4-parameter list tool.
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 50%: `limit` and `cursor` are already documented in-schema, and the description only repeats the cursor contract. The undocumented `email` and `external_id` filters receive no explanation of match semantics (exact vs. partial, case sensitivity) anywhere, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 for a half-covered schema.
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?
"List customers" merely restates the tool name and title; the sentence adds no verb beyond the name and no scope, filters, or resource detail. The only distinguishing content is the pagination note, which is about mechanics rather than purpose.
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 list versus retrieve_customer, or how this relates to list_subscriptions/list_invoices when a customer is needed. The only actionable direction is passing `next_cursor` back as `cursor`, which is paging mechanics, not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.