search_clientsFind clients by name or email. Returns client_id, name, email. Use the client_id in other tools. [requires scope: read]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Name or email fragment (min 2 chars) |
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 mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by stating the returned fields and the required 'read' scope, giving the agent useful context about authentication and output without contradicting the 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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the result. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no 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 simple read-only search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior, return values, and scope requirements. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing limit semantics or when to choose get_client instead, but these are minor gaps.
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?
The description adds meaning to the query parameter ('name or email') but the schema already covers that, and the limit parameter is only documented with a type and default. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but does not explain limit behavior or constraints.
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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a clear resource ('clients'), and the search criteria ('by name or email'). It also names the return fields and explains the downstream use of client_id, which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like create_client or get_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 clearly implies this tool is for finding clients when you have a name or email fragment, and it tells the agent to use the resulting client_id in other tools. It does not explicitly contrast with get_client for when an exact client_id is already known, which would be the natural alternative.
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.