get_instructor_scheduleClasses one instructor is teaching in a Pacific date range (default: next 7 days), with booked counts. [requires scope: read]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date_to | No | ||
| date_from | No | ||
| instructor | Yes | First or last name |
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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context beyond them: timezone, default date range, booked counts in the result, and the required read scope. No contradiction with 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?
One dense, front-loaded sentence conveys the core behavior, defaults, timezone, and output content, followed by a short scope note. No filler or repetition.
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 read-only schedule lookup with one required parameter, the description covers purpose, date defaults, timezone, and output content. It lacks exact date-format/boundary details, but these are minor given the schema and annotations.
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?
The schema only documents 'instructor' with 'First or last name'; date_to and date_from are bare strings. The description partially compensates by indicating they form a Pacific date range with a 7-day default, but it omits date format and boundary inclusivity.
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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('schedule'), then further specifies it returns classes one instructor teaches, filtered by a Pacific date range, with booked counts. This clear scope distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_classes or get_class_roster.
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 provides useful operational context: Pacific date range, default next 7 days, and required read scope. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over sibling alternatives or when not to use it.
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.