Skip to main content
Glama
ztemerbekov

A1 Yandex KIT MCP

by ztemerbekov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

List customers

list_customers
Read-only

Retrieve paginated store customer records, optionally all pages or CSV, with coverage metadata so partial results are flagged and incomplete listings are not claimed as complete.

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, date of birth, 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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.8.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / redact / description
      Previous value: -"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."New value: +"Use redact:true when the task does not need personal data (e.g. counting or aggregating orders) — personal fields (name, phone, email, date of birth, delivery address and its parts, notes) are replaced with \"[redacted]\". Applies to the response only; request bodies are never redacted. Default false."
  2. 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"
+}
  3. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes further by disclosing the machine-readable coverage envelope (coverage, received, total_count, pages_read) and the hard rule that coverage:'partial' must be surfaced and must not be reported as a complete listing. That is real behavioral context the agent could not get from annotations. It stops short of describing auth needs, rate limits, or the item shape, so it is not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is long and compounds the envelope contents with a compliance rule, but both clauses carry load.

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 no output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing the response envelope and the partial-coverage obligation, and the schema fully covers inputs. A short note on the item shape or auth scope would make it fully self-sufficient.

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%, so all six parameters (all, page, per_page, fields, format, redact) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('List customers of the store') and adds that results are paginated, so the agent immediately knows this is a collection read. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_customer or get_customer_orders, leaving the caller to infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though get_customer (single record) and get_customer_orders are obvious siblings an agent could confuse this with. The pagination note is descriptive of mechanics, not a usage condition.

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