get_payment_optionsWays a client can pay for a specific class (membership, credits). Use before add_client_to_class when you want to pick a specific option. [requires scope: read]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | Yes | ||
| class_session_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. The description adds useful context by specifying the auth requirement ('requires scope: read') and clarifying that it only lists membership/credit payment options rather than performing a charge. 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?
The description is only two sentences and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by a workflow hint and the scope requirement. Every sentence earns its place 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 simple read-only getter with two obvious parameters, the description is complete enough. It explains the output domain (membership/credits), the intended workflow position before add_client_to_class, and the required scope. No output schema exists, but the return concept is adequately conveyed.
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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining client_id or class_session_id beyond the property names themselves. It reuses the ideas of 'client' and 'specific class' but does not describe how to obtain the IDs, accepted formats, or any additional parameter semantics. The meaningful parameter burden falls almost entirely on the schema names.
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 what the tool returns: 'ways a client can pay for a specific class (membership, credits).' It also distinguishes itself by positioning it in the add_client_to_class workflow, so an agent can tell it apart from payment-processing siblings like charge_client.
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 gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Use before add_client_to_class when you want to pick a specific option.' This strongly guides the agent, though it does not mention alternative tools for situations where payment should actually be processed rather than just queried.
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.