get_membershipLive details for one membership instance (status, dates, next charge, freeze, cancellation). membership ids come from get_client. [requires scope: read]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with those. It adds value beyond annotations by specifying the live nature of the data, enumerating returned fields, and disclosing the 'read' scope requirement. This is meaningful context without contradicting any structured metadata.
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, information-dense sentence with no filler. Each element earns its place: the object type, the field list, the ID source, and the scope requirement. It is well-structured and immediately front-loads the core purpose.
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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what the tool returns, how to obtain the identifier, and the required permission. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit field list in the description. There are no material gaps for an agent to resolve before invoking the tool.
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 has one required parameter, membership_id, with no textual description in the schema (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining where the ID comes from ('membership ids come from get_client'), which is the key semantic detail an agent needs. The single parameter's meaning is otherwise entirely inferable from its name.
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 opens with 'Live details for one membership instance', a specific verb-resource pairing that states exactly what the tool returns. The parenthetical list (status, dates, next charge, freeze, cancellation) further defines scope and clearly separates it from sibling mutation tools like cancel_membership, freeze_membership, and extend_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 provides clear contextual guidance by noting that membership ids come from get_client, establishing a prerequisite workflow. It also states the required scope ('read'), which helps the agent know when authorization is sufficient. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the tool's read-only purpose is unambiguous given the sibling set.
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.