get_reservation_historyA client's booking history with counts of attended, late/penalty cancels, no-shows and graced cancels. Use it to decide on fee waivers. [requires scope: read]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Look-back window | |
| No | |||
| limit | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond this by specifying the summarized output categories and the required 'read' scope, giving the agent a clearer picture of what the call returns and what permissions are needed.
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 compact and front-loaded with the most important behavioral detail. The additional usage hint and scope note earn their place, though the wording is slightly general and could be tightened.
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?
With no output schema and low schema coverage, the description leaves critical invocation details unresolved, particularly how the client is identified and what the response shape looks like. It is adequate for understanding the purpose but incomplete for confident invocation.
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 only 25%, so the description needed to compensate, but it provides no parameter semantics at all. It does not clarify the relationship between email and client_id, the meaning of limit, or which identifier should be used for lookups.
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 identifies the resource ('a client's booking history') and the specific data elements returned (counts of attended, late/penalty cancels, no-shows, graced cancels). It is distinct enough from siblings like attendance_report, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 phrase 'Use it to decide on fee waivers' provides a concrete decision-making context, which is helpful for an agent deciding when to call this tool. It does not state exclusions or explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it misses the top score.
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.