Create a customer record with name, unique email, and optional phone to enable support ticket management and customer lookup.
Create a new customer record.
Args:
name: Full name of the customer.
email: Customer's email address (must be unique).
phone: Optional phone number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| Yes | |||
| phone | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It does disclose that a new customer record is created and that email must be unique, but it does not state return values, duplicate-email handling, or any side effects beyond the basic creation.
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?
Extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by a scannable parameter list. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler.
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 simple 3-parameter create tool, the essential invocation details are present. However, without an output schema or annotations, the description should ideally clarify what the tool returns or how conflicts are handled, both of which are absent.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args block fully compensates by defining all three parameters with meaningful details: 'Full name', 'must be unique' for email, and 'Optional' for phone. This is exactly what an agent needs to construct a valid call.
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 operation ('Create') and a specific resource ('customer record'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_customer_tool, list_customers_tool, and create_ticket_tool. The intent is immediately unambiguous.
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 intended use is implied by the verb 'Create', but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites. It does not discuss when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.