create_clientCreate a brand-new client (customer account) in MarianaTek. Fails if the email already exists. [requires scope: client]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| phone | No | ||
| last_name | Yes | ||
| birth_date | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| first_name | Yes | ||
| marketing_opt_in | 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 flag this as non-read-only and destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the operation fails on duplicate email and requires scope 'client'. This goes beyond the structural metadata, though it does not detail success response or side effects beyond creation.
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 tight sentence front-loads the action and resource, then adds the uniqueness failure and scope requirement. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.
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 6-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description is lean: it covers auth scope and duplicate-email failure but omits the success return shape and any guidance on optional fields. Annotations and the schema fill some gaps, but not all.
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 only 17% (birth_date YYYY-MM-DD), and the description adds little per-parameter meaning. It does clarify that email must be unique, but phone, marketing_opt_in, first_name, and last_name semantics remain undocumented except for the schema's own type/default info.
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 names a specific action ('create') and a precise resource ('brand-new client (customer account) in MarianaTek'), and adds a distinguishing constraint (fails if email already exists). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_client, search_clients, and add_client_note.
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 stating what it does, but it never says when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. No explicit routing to search_clients or get_client for existing accounts, so an agent must infer the right context.
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.