Skip to main content
Glama
ztemerbekov

A1 Yandex KIT MCP

by ztemerbekov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

List customers

list_customers
Read-only

Fetch store customers with pagination. Use the coverage status to verify whether the complete customer list was returned.

Instructions

List customers of the store (paginated). The response carries a machine-readable coverage envelope (coverage, received, total_count, pages_read); coverage:"partial" MUST be reflected in the user-facing answer and forbids claiming the listing is complete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
allNoFetch all pages via auto-pagination, up to 500 items; ignores page/per_page.
pageNoPage number, starting at 1 (default 1).
fieldsNoCSV columns; only valid together with format:"csv". Field names are validated against the item schema of the operation's response — an unknown name fails with the list of allowed fields. Default: every top-level scalar field of the item.
formatNoOutput format: "csv" renders the items as RFC 4180 CSV (a leading "# coverage:" comment line, then the header row) instead of JSON — cheaper for wide exports. Default: JSON.
redactNoUse redact:true when the task does not need personal data (e.g. counting or aggregating orders) — personal fields (name, phone, email, delivery address and its parts, notes) are replaced with "[redacted]". Applies to the response only; request bodies are never redacted. Default false.
per_pageNoItems per page, 1-100 (default 25). Values outside the range are clamped.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "CSV columns; only valid together with format:\"csv\". Field names are validated against the item schema of the operation's response — an unknown name fails with the list of allowed fields. Default: every top-level scalar field of the item.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / format
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Output format: \"csv\" renders the items as RFC 4180 CSV (a leading \"# coverage:\" comment line, then the header row) instead of JSON — cheaper for wide exports. Default: JSON.",
+  "enum": [
+    "csv"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / redact
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Use redact:true when the task does not need personal data (e.g. counting or aggregating orders) — personal fields (name, phone, email, delivery address and its parts, notes) are replaced with \"[redacted]\". Applies to the response only; request bodies are never redacted. Default false.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important response behavior: the coverage envelope fields and the strict requirement that coverage:'partial' must be reflected in user-facing answers and forbids claiming completeness. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core function is stated first, then the critical coverage semantic is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list operation with fully documented parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essential behavioral contract. The coverage envelope warning is the key missing piece from schema/annotations and it is included. No output schema exists, but the description provides enough return-shape context to guide correct use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already well documented in the schema. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource ('List customers of the store') and adds the pagination qualifier, clearly distinguishing this from single-customer tools like get_customer and from other list_* siblings. It directly states what the tool does without ambiguity.

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?

The description makes it clear this is a paginated listing operation and the coverage-envelope note tells the agent how to handle partial results. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for selecting this tool over get_customer or other list_* siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools