move_client_spotMove a booked client to a different reformer/spot in the same class. Use get_spot_map to see spot ids and which are free. [requires scope: book]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spot | Yes | Spot number/name (e.g. '7') or spot_id | |
| 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 indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the required scope ('requires scope: book') and clarifies that the client must already be booked. This is useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though it does not detail consequences like freeing the previous spot or failing if the target is occupied.
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 two short, purposeful sentences plus a scope note. It front-loads the core action and immediately provides the essential preparation step without redundancy.
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 small mutation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action, the scope requirement, and how to find valid spot values. It could mention what happens on invalid input or whether a confirmation object is returned, but the essential call context is present.
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 33% (only 'spot' is documented). The description helps by explaining how to obtain spot ids and identify free spots, but client_id and class_session_id are left to inference from 'booked client' and 'same class.' This partially compensates for the low schema coverage but does not fully document each parameter.
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 action ('Move'), the resource ('a booked client'), and the target ('a different reformer/spot in the same class'). This distinguishes it from the sibling move_client_to_class by explicitly limiting the move to within the same class.
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?
It gives concrete guidance on how to prepare for the call: 'Use get_spot_map to see spot ids and which are free.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the 'same class' qualifier implies the boundary versus moving clients between classes.
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.