Skip to main content
Glama

Wayfront

by com.wayfront.mcp
OverviewAdmin

Client Read Tool

client-read
Read-only

List or show visible client accounts with filtering, sorting and pagination.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number for "list". Default 1.
sortNoSort fields for "list". Append :asc or :desc for direction (default :asc). Example: ["created_at:desc"]. Available fields: id, email, role, role_id, accounts.id, status_id, managers, manager_id, pipelineItems, optin, created_at, updated_at.
limitNoResults per page for "list". Default 20, max 100.
actionYesAction to perform.
filtersNoPurity filter object for "list". Keys are field names, values are operator objects. Example: {"status":{"$eq":1}}. Available fields: id, email, role, role_id, accounts.id, status_id, managers, manager_id, pipelineItems, optin, created_at, updated_at. Status filter key is "status_id" (numeric IDs, not string names): 1=Contact, 2=Lead, 3=Client, 4=Client Team. Marketing opt-in filter key is "optin": 1=opted in, 0=opted out (shows the "Outreach opt-out" badge), use the $null operator for never answered.
client_idNoClient ID. Required for "show" action.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'visible' qualifier, which implies some accounts may be hidden, but does not explain the mechanism or consequences. It does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and includes the key capabilities (filtering, sorting, pagination). No waste, every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only tool with a fully described schema (6 params, nested filters, enums), the description is adequate. It does not explain return formats, but no output schema exists and the action semantics (list vs show) are implicit in parameter names and schema descriptions. The 'visible' nuance is a small gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all parameters, including enums, defaults, and filter field examples. The description's mention of filtering, sorting, and pagination adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the verb (list/show) and resource (client accounts) clearly, and mentions filtering, sorting, and pagination. It is specific enough to differentiate from client-write (which mutates) and client-custom-field-read (different resource), though it does not explicitly name siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention client-write, client-custom-field-read, or other read tools, nor any conditions that would favor one over the other. The 'visible client accounts' phrase hints at a scope but is not actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Wayfront toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources