get_clientFull profile for one client: contact info, memberships, account balance, saved cards (masked), upcoming reservations, recent attendance. [requires scope: read]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | |||
| client_id | 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 mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, reducing the need for the description to cover safety. The description adds useful behavior beyond those annotations: it requires the 'read' scope and states that saved cards are returned masked, which is important privacy context. It does not fully describe error or edge-case behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.
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 a single front-loaded sentence: 'Full profile for one client' immediately communicates the core purpose, followed by a compact colon-separated list of contents and a brief scope note. Every part earns its place and there is no redundant 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?
The description gives a solid list of return contents and mentions the required scope, which is meaningful. However, it fails to explain how to identify the target client via the two optional-looking parameters, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. An agent cannot be fully confident about whether to supply email, client_id, or both, making this minimally viable but incomplete.
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 carries the burden of explaining the parameters. It never mentions email or client_id, nor does it clarify whether one, both, or neither is expected, especially since the schema lists no required parameters. The parameter names are self-explanatory, which prevents a score of 1, but the description adds no real guidance.
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 states the tool returns a 'Full profile for one client' and itemizes the exact data included: contact info, memberships, account balance, saved cards, reservations, and attendance. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_clients (searching), get_client_notes (specific note data), and get_membership (single 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 when to use it: when you need a complete profile for a single, known client rather than search results or a narrow sub-resource. It states the read scope requirement, giving useful context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
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.