freeze_membershipFreeze a membership from a start date until a reactivation date (billing and usage pause). Dates are YYYY-MM-DD Pacific. [requires scope: money]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| freeze_from | No | Default today | |
| membership_id | Yes | ||
| reactivate_on | 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 annotations already flag the tool as mutating and destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context: billing and usage pause until the reactivation date, dates are Pacific, and the operation requires the money scope. It does not contradict 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?
The description is one efficient sentence plus a scope note. It front-loads the action and effect, then gives the essential date format and authorization requirement without fluff.
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 the core contract: what freezing does, when it ends, date formatting, and required scope. With no output schema, it doesn't describe the return value, and the note parameter is left unexplained, but the operation is simple enough that the definition is largely sufficient.
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 coverage is only 25%, so the description partially compensates by explaining the date format/timezone and the start-to-reactivation date semantics. However, it does not explicitly document membership_id or note, leaving gaps for the required identifier and the optional note parameter.
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 ('Freeze') and resource ('a membership') and clearly defines the operation as a temporary pause from a start date until a reactivation date. The phrase 'billing and usage pause' distinguishes it from cancel_membership, extend_membership, and unfreeze_membership.
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 a temporary-pause use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention unfreeze_membership as the matching resume action or cancel_membership for permanent removal.
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.