Get detailed profile for a specific member/account by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountId | Yes | The account ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds that it targets a specific member/account by ID, which is a scoping constraint, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as output format or special cases.
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 a single, clear sentence that gets straight to the point. It uses efficient wording with no redundant phrases, earning full marks for conciseness.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema and robust annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is largely sufficient. It could potentially clarify what 'detailed profile' includes, but the output schema likely covers that. It is complete for a simple retrieval tool.
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 schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, accountId, with a description ('The account ID'). The tool description repeats 'by ID' without adding new semantic meaning, so it does not enhance the schema's parameter documentation.
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 clearly states the tool's action: get a detailed profile for a specific member/account by ID. This distinguishes it from list/search tools like search_members or list_contacts, as it emphasizes targeted retrieval by ID.
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 implies usage: use when you have an account ID and need a member's detailed profile. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.
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.
Many tools have overlapping boundaries, such as generate_post_cover/attach_post_cover_from_job/upload_post_cover_from_url, update_deal/update_deal_stage/mark_deal_won/mark_deal_lost, and booking status transitions (confirm/cancel/complete/mark_no_show). The catch-all execute_tool adds further ambiguity.
Nearly all tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case convention (create_*, list_*, get_*, update_*, delete_*, restore_*). Minor exceptions like 'clone' and 'execute_tool' are still readable and do not significantly break the pattern.
With 223 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped. Even for a full CRM platform, this many tools overwhelms context windows and makes tool selection impractical. It far exceeds the reasonable range for an MCP server.
The surface is broad but has notable gaps: no update_booking/delete_booking, no delete_product, no send_message/send_campaign (referenced but absent), and no delete_staff/resource. Some workflows dead-end or require manual approval steps.