add_client_noteAdd a staff note to a client's MarianaTek profile (e.g. injury, preferences, conversation summary). Pin it to keep it at the top. [requires scope: client]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| No | |||
| pinned | No | ||
| client_id | No |
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?
Annotations already convey the read/write and destructive nature, so the description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: it is a staff note, it is stored on the client's profile, pinning keeps it at the top, and it requires the 'client' scope. There is no contradiction with the annotations.
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 carry the essential purpose, examples, pinning behavior, and auth scope with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.
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 add-note operation, the description covers purpose and one behavioral nuance, but it leaves gaps in client identification semantics and does not mention what the tool returns. Given the 0% schema coverage and no output schema, an agent may still be unsure whether email, client_id, or both are needed.
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 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only explains the 'pinned' behavior ('Pin it to keep it at the top'). It does not clarify how text, email, or client_id relate to the target client or whether a client identifier is required beyond the schema's minimal 'text' requirement.
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: 'Add a staff note to a client's MarianaTek profile,' and gives concrete examples (injury, preferences, conversation summary) that clarify what kind of content belongs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_client_notes or add_client_to_class.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool via its examples and the phrase 'staff note,' and the required scope is stated. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is unambiguous enough that an agent can select it appropriately.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and the descriptions carefully separate operations like attendance_report, list_classes, and get_class_roster. A few reads overlap conceptually (get_client, get_reservation_history, get_credit_history, get_client_notes all return client-related data), but each has a specific output that an agent can distinguish with reasonable effort.
Tool names overwhelmingly follow a consistent action_object pattern: add_client_note, cancel_class, freeze_membership, refund_order, set_client_tag, unfreeze_membership. The get_/list_ prefix distinction is used predictably, and auth tools (login, logout, whoami) are standard exceptions rather than inconsistent naming.
41 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold for a heavy tool set. Although each tool appears to serve a real studio-operations need, the sheer number creates a large surface for an agent to navigate and places significant burden on selection accuracy.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle well across clients, classes, memberships, orders, payments, and communications, with no obvious dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no update_client profile tool and no class-scheduling creation, but staff workflows can generally be completed.