adjust_account_balanceAdd (positive) or remove (negative) store credit on a client's MarianaTek account balance. Use for goodwill credits or credit-based refunds instead of a card refund. [requires scope: money]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | ||
| amount | Yes | USD, e.g. 25 or -25 | |
| client_id | Yes |
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 mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the destructive action is removing store credit and that the operation requires the 'money' scope. It does not contradict the annotations and provides additional context beyond the structured fields.
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 compact sentences communicate action, sign convention, use case, alternative, and scope requirement. Every clause earns its place and the main action is front-loaded.
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 description covers what the tool does, when to use it, the required scope, and the amount sign behavior. The main gap is the undocumented 'note' parameter and the absence of any return-value detail, but annotations cover the destructive safety profile, so the description is largely complete for a 3-parameter mutation tool.
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?
The description clarifies that positive amounts add credit and negative amounts remove credit, and 'client's account balance' gives context for client_id. However, the required 'note' parameter is completely undocumented, and schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description only partially compensates for the low coverage.
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-resource pair: 'Add (positive) or remove (negative) store credit on a client's MarianaTek account balance.' It also explicitly distinguishes this from a card refund, making the tool's purpose and boundary clear even among many siblings.
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?
It gives explicit guidance: 'Use for goodwill credits or credit-based refunds instead of a card refund.' This tells an agent when to select this tool and when to consider an alternative, which is exactly what the dimension asks for.
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.