cancel_membershipCancel a membership. mode='end_of_cycle' (default) lets the client keep using it until the current paid period ends and stops future billing; mode='immediate' terminates it right now. Confirm with the user first. [requires scope: money]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | end_of_cycle | |
| note | No | ||
| reason | Yes | ||
| membership_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?
The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as destructive, and the description adds meaningful context: end_of_cycle stops future billing, immediate terminates access right away, and the operation requires the money scope. This gives the agent a clear picture of consequences and prerequisites beyond what annotations alone provide.
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?
Three tight sentences. The core purpose is first, mode semantics follow, and the confirmation requirement and scope requirement are appended without redundancy. Every sentence adds information that is not already in the schema.
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 destructive operation with no output schema and a modest parameter set, the description covers the key behavioral details: modes, billing impact, scope requirement, and user confirmation. It could mention reversibility or refund implications, but the core information an agent needs to call this tool correctly is present.
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 must compensate. It explains the mode enum and its default, which is valuable, but does not describe membership_id, reason, or note. Of the four parameters, only one receives meaningful semantic detail, leaving the required parameters underspecified.
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?
Starts with 'Cancel a membership' – a specific verb and resource – then explains the two cancellation modes in concrete terms (end_of_cycle vs immediate). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like freeze_membership or extend_membership and goes well beyond the title.
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?
Gives clear context for when to use each mode: end_of_cycle keeps service until the paid period ends, immediate terminates right now, and end_of_cycle is the default. It also instructs the agent to confirm with the user first. It does not explicitly name alternatives like 'use freeze_membership instead for temporary holds,' but the distinction is strong enough for an agent to make the right call in most cases.
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.