set_class_capacityChange a class session's capacity and/or waitlist capacity. [requires scope: book]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| capacity | No | ||
| class_session_id | Yes | ||
| waitlist_capacity | 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 mark this as non-read-only and destructive, and the description's 'Change' is consistent with that. It adds the useful scope requirement ('requires scope: book'), but it does not disclose side effects of lowering capacity, such as impact on existing enrollments or waitlist, nor whether changes are reversible. With annotations covering the basic mutation signal, this is acceptable but not rich.
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 one tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the scope requirement appended. Every word earns its place; no redundant restating of the title or field types.
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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the main intent and access requirement. However, it leaves the return value and consequences of reducing capacity/waitlist limits to inference, which is a noticeable gap for a destructive operation.
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. It clarifies that capacity and waitlist_capacity are the modifiable fields and can be changed individually or together ('and/or'), but it does not explain class_session_id semantics or constraints/limits. The schema only provides names and types, so the description adds some but not complete 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 states a specific action ('Change') on a specific resource ('a class session's capacity and/or waitlist capacity'), which is precise and distinct from sibling tools like cancel_class or move_client_to_class. It clearly tells an agent what the tool does.
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 makes it obvious this tool is for adjusting capacity/waitlist settings, and the '[requires scope: book]' note adds an access prerequisite. It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use cases, but no sibling tool offers the same capacity-setting function, so this is adequate context.
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.