FavCRM

This connector has been deprecated

This connector has been replaced by https://glama.ai/mcp/connectors/io.favcrm/favcrm/admin

search_members

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search and filter members/accounts. Supports text search, date ranges, booking/activity history, membership tier, tags, and more. Use lastBookingBefore/inactiveDays to find inactive members.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sort`	No	Sort column: name, email, or createdAt
`limit`	No	Max results (default 20)
`order`	No	Sort order
`search`	No	Name, email, or phone to search
`source`	No	Filter by account source
`tagIds`	No	Filter by tag IDs
`tierId`	No	Filter by membership tier ID
`lifeStage`	No	Filter by life stage
`hasBooking`	No	Filter to members with/without any booking
`createdAfter`	No	ISO date — accounts created after this date
`inactiveDays`	No	Members with no activity in the last N days
`createdBefore`	No	ISO date — accounts created before this date
`hasMembership`	No	Filter to members with active membership
`lastBookingAfter`	No	ISO date — members who have a booking after this date
`membershipStatus`	No	Filter by membership status
`lastActivityAfter`	No	ISO date — members with activity after this date
`lastBookingBefore`	No	ISO date — members whose last booking is before this date (or have no bookings)
`lastActivityBefore`	No	ISO date — members with no activity since this date

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Tool result payload — shape varies per tool, see the tool description
`summary`	Yes	One-line human-readable summary of the action
`renderType`	Yes	UI rendering hint for the result

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe, read-only nature is clear. The description adds some behavioral context (supports various filters) but does not disclose pagination, result limits, or performance characteristics beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a concise list of capabilities, and a specific usage example. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the parameter count (18) and presence of output schema, the description provides a useful high-level overview and a specific use case, but does not explain how filters combine (AND logic) or mention common patterns (e.g., combining search with lifeStage). It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic grouping by listing filter categories (text search, date ranges, booking/activity history, membership tier, tags) and highlighting specific parameters (lastBookingBefore, inactiveDays), which helps understand parameter usage beyond the raw schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search and filter members/accounts.' It specifies the resource (members/accounts) and the action (search and filter), distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_audit_logs and search_crm.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides a specific usage tip: 'Use lastBookingBefore/inactiveDays to find inactive members.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like get_member_profile for single member details.

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

All FavCRM tools Inspect

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.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear descriptions that minimize ambiguity. Even related tools like create_post vs create_post_type are well-separated by their targets.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_account, list_services, update_post), with no mixing of naming conventions. The pattern is predictable throughout the set.

Tool Count1/5

190 tools is excessively large for any server, far exceeding the typical 3-15 tool range. The sheer volume overwhelms agents and suggests poor scoping, even for a comprehensive CRM platform.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers CRUD operations across many domains (CRM, bookings, marketing, CMS, etc.), but notable gaps exist (e.g., no delete_account, delete_contact, update_booking). These are minor given the vast surface.

Resources

Need Help?