promote_from_waitlistMove a waitlisted client into the class as a confirmed booking (removes their waitlist spot, then books them with their available membership/credits). Fails cleanly if the class is full unless allow_overbook is true. [requires scope: book]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spot_id | No | ||
| client_id | Yes | ||
| allow_overbook | No | ||
| 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?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses what gets destroyed (the waitlist spot), the side effect (consuming membership/credits), the failure mode ('Fails cleanly if the class is full'), the overbook exception, and the required scope ('book'). This is rich behavioral context that substantially exceeds the binary annotation flags.
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?
Two sentences with zero wasted words: the core action is front-loaded, followed by the destructive mechanic, the failure condition, and the scope requirement. Every clause adds operational value.
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 empty parameter descriptions, the description carries the full burden, and it covers the success flow, the failure condition, and the overbook escape hatch well. Remaining gaps are the meaning of spot_id, the behavior when a client lacks available membership/credits, and the return value, which are moderate rather than critical omissions.
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%, so the description must compensate, but of the four parameters it only clarifies allow_overbook ('unless allow_overbook is true'). spot_id — the most ambiguous parameter — is never explicitly tied to the waitlist spot that the description mentions removing, and client_id/class_session_id receive no semantic context beyond their obvious 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 uses a specific verb ('Move'), a specific resource ('a waitlisted client into the class'), and states the exact mechanics ('removes their waitlist spot, then books them with their available membership/credits'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like add_client_to_class or move_client_to_class, which lack the waitlist-promotion semantics.
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 context of use is clear: a waitlisted client is being converted into a confirmed booking, which implies the appropriate moment to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., 'for a client not on the waitlist, use add_client_to_class'), leaving sibling differentiation to inference.
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.