Eversports Studio Manager by Cotlet

View voucher journal in Eversports Studio Manager

eversports_studio_manager_view_voucher_journal

Read-onlyIdempotent

View voucher journal in the user's own Eversports Studio Manager account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in Eversports Studio Manager step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Eversports Studio Manager Cloud Browser. Eversports Studio Manager's official API: Eversports Studio Manager has an official Provider API, but it is read-only: it reads eight areas (business and venues, schedules, booking details, teachers, products, customers, customer products, and attendance and court bookings) and cannot add, change or cancel anything.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "eversports_studio_manager_view_voucher_journal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the key behavioral trait that this tool performs no action ('opens nothing by itself') and hands off execution to browser tools, which prevents an agent from assuming the journal was actually opened. It also explains why the official Provider API cannot substitute, listing its read-only scope. It does not cover auth or session prerequisites for the Cloud Browser handoff, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The core behavior and the handoff instruction are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is the right ordering. The closing paragraph about the official Provider API is longer than strictly necessary, though it does preempt a plausible 'why not just use the API' question. Some tightening of the eight enumerated read areas would improve it.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema guidance tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned (step-by-step screens/buttons/fields), that nothing is executed, and which tool family to use next. The read-only API note closes the remaining ambiguity about alternate execution routes.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the only inputs are the implicit user account context and the target resource.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('View voucher journal') and, crucially, clarifies that the tool returns step-by-step instructions rather than the journal data itself. That distinction is not obvious from the name alone, so it adds real value. It stops short of naming any sibling tool it should be preferred over, leaving differentiation implicit.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear usage path: call this to learn the screens/buttons/fields, then actually perform the action with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Cloud Browser. That sequencing is explicit and actionable. It does not state when not to use it, nor does it compare against sibling view_* tools that might be more direct for adjacent tasks.

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

All Eversports Studio Manager by Cotlet tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?