remove_client_from_classCancel a client's reservation for a class session. MarianaTek applies its normal late-cancel policy; the membership/credit is returned per that policy. [requires scope: book]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | Yes | ||
| reservation_id | No | Optional: cancel this exact reservation | |
| 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 useful behavioral context: MarianaTek's late-cancel policy applies and membership/credit is returned per that policy. It also discloses the required scope 'book'. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the consequence of the cancellation, though it remains somewhat vague about the exact policy conditions.
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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the policy consequence and required scope. Every word contributes useful information.
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?
The description covers purpose, policy, and scope, which are important for a destructive action. However, with three parameters and only 33% schema coverage, the lack of parameter-level guidance creates a meaningful gap. There is also no mention of what happens on success or failure, and no guidance about the optional reservation_id.
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%, with only reservation_id documented in the schema. The description mentions 'client' and 'class session' but does not explain the parameters, the optional nature of reservation_id, or how it interacts with class_session_id. Given low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter meaning.
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 a specific action: cancel a client's reservation for a class session. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_client_to_class, move_client_to_class, and cancel_class, since it focuses on removing an individual client's reservation rather than altering or canceling the class itself.
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 no when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not mention alternatives such as move_client_spot or add_client_to_class, nor does it indicate scenarios where this tool should or should not be used.
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.