ecwid_get_customerGet a single customer by id, including contact details, addresses, and customer group. Ecwid REST: GET /customers/{customerId}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer_id | Yes | Customer id. |
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 readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, so the description adds context by naming the REST GET endpoint and the returned data categories. It does not mention error behavior like 404 for a missing customer, but the simple read-only nature is sufficiently disclosed.
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 sentences with no filler: the first defines action, scope, and returned content; the second maps the operation to the REST endpoint. Every sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the core invocation details and highlights return contents. It is slightly less complete because it does not suggest a sibling for lookup without an id or describe not-found behavior, but those are secondary.
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 100%: customer_id is described as 'Customer id.' The description adds no new semantic detail beyond connecting the id to the resource path, which matches the baseline for a well-documented single parameter.
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 verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single customer'), and the lookup key ('by id'), while also listing the data returned (contact details, addresses, customer group). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecwid_search_customers or ecwid_get_order.
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 usage by requiring an id, and the REST path reinforces that. However, it never explicitly tells the agent to use ecwid_search_customers when the id is unknown, so guidance about when not to use this tool is only implied rather than stated.
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 targets a distinct resource-action pair (e.g., get by ID vs. search/list, adjust inventory vs. update order). The prefix `ecwid_` plus verb-noun structure makes boundaries clear, and no two tools appear to perform the same task.
All tools follow the `ecwid_<verb>_<resource>` pattern with verbs like get, list, search, adjust, update. The naming is uniform and predictable, with no mixed conventions or vague verbs.
12 tools is within the ideal range for a domain-specific API covering products, categories, customers, orders, coupons, and store profile. Each tool has a clear purpose and the set is well-scoped without redundancy.
The set covers read operations well but lacks create/update/delete for most resources (products, categories, customers, coupons). Only inventory adjustment and order status update are provided as mutations, leaving significant gaps in lifecycle management that an agent would likely need.