chargebee_create_customerCreates a customer in Chargebee (additive). Chargebee auto-generates the id unless you pass one. Chargebee API: POST /customers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Optional custom customer id (Chargebee auto-generates if omitted). | |
| No | Customer email address. | ||
| phone | No | Phone number. | |
| locale | No | Locale, e.g. fr-CA. | |
| company | No | Company name. | |
| last_name | No | Customer last name. | |
| first_name | No | Customer first name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says the operation is 'additive', but the annotations declare destructiveHint=true. This is a direct contradiction: creating a customer is not destructive. The description's behavioral disclosure is undermined by the annotation, so the tool sends mixed and confusing signals.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then provides the id behavior and the API endpoint. Each sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
The tool has no output schema and the description does not indicate what the response contains. More importantly, the contradictory destructiveHint annotation leaves behavioral expectations unclear. The description is not complete enough for an agent to fully understand the operation's side effects or result.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds only a redundant note about id auto-generation, which is already present in the id parameter description. It does not meaningfully elaborate on parameter semantics beyond the 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Creates a customer in Chargebee') and explicitly marks the operation as additive, distinguishing it clearly from the get/list/update sibling tools. The title and description align, and the resource is 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 description implies this tool is for creating new customers, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus chargebee_update_customer or when not to use it. There is no guidance about existing customers, idempotency, or alternatives, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource-action pair (e.g., create_customer, get_invoice, list_subscriptions). The get/list distinction is clear, and there is no overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools follow a consistent `chargebee_<verb>_<resource>` snake_case pattern. Verbs are limited to create, get, list, and update, which are used uniformly across resources.
With 13 tools covering customers, invoices, subscriptions, coupons, credit notes, items, item prices, and transactions, the count is appropriate for a subscription billing platform. It is neither overly sparse nor bloated.
The tool set provides strong read coverage (lists and gets) but limited write operations. Only customer creation and updates are supported; subscriptions, invoices, and other key resources lack create/update/delete operations, making it incomplete for full lifecycle management.