attendance_reportAttendance for every class in a Pacific date range (default: last 7 days), grouped by class, instructor, or day. Includes member / ClassPass / WellHub / family-staff / other breakdown and no-show counts. [requires scope: read]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date_to | No | YYYY-MM-DD inclusive. Default today. | |
| group_by | No | class | |
| date_from | No | YYYY-MM-DD. Default 7 days ago. |
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 signal a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful context: it requires scope 'read,' operates on a Pacific date range, defaults to the last 7 days, and reports breakdowns and no-show counts. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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?
A single dense sentence front-loads the core scope and then packs grouping, breakdown categories, and authorization scope without filler. Every clause contributes useful information.
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 is reasonably complete for a read-only report with optional parameters: it covers date range, grouping modes, breakdown dimensions, and no-show counts. There is no output schema, so the agent must infer exact response shape, but the listed categories provide adequate guidance for invocation.
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?
Two of the three parameters are already documented in the schema with format and defaults. The description adds value by spelling out the group_by enum semantics ('grouped by class, instructor, or day') and the date-range defaults, but it does not substantially extend the schema's parameter meaning.
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 clearly identifies the resource (attendance for every class in a date range) and the aggregation dimensions (class, instructor, day), which distinguishes it from lower-level tools like get_class_roster. It lacks an explicit verb like 'Returns' or 'Gets,' but the intent is unmistakable.
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?
Usage context is implied: this is the aggregate attendance reporting tool for a date range, not a per-class roster tool. However, the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some routing to the agent's inference.
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.