Skip to main content
Glama

FavCRM

by io.favcrm

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNoSort column: name, email, or createdAt
limitNoMax results (default 20)
orderNoSort order
searchNoName, email, or phone to search
sourceNoFilter by account source
tagIdsNoFilter by tag IDs
tierIdNoFilter by membership tier ID
lifeStageNoFilter by life stage
hasBookingNoFilter to members with/without any booking
createdAfterNoISO date — accounts created after this date
inactiveDaysNoMembers with no activity in the last N days
createdBeforeNoISO date — accounts created before this date
hasMembershipNoFilter to members with active membership
lastBookingAfterNoISO date — members who have a booking after this date
membershipStatusNoFilter by membership status
lastActivityAfterNoISO date — members with activity after this date
lastBookingBeforeNoISO date — members whose last booking is before this date (or have no bookings)
lastActivityBeforeNoISO date — members with no activity since this date

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesTool result payload — shape varies per tool, see the tool description
summaryYesOne-line human-readable summary of the action
renderTypeYesUI rendering hint for the result

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds a behavioral nuance about using specific filters for inactive members, but the schema already documents these parameters comprehensively. It does not reveal new behavioral traits beyond the structured fields.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and wastes no words. It effectively summarizes the tool's scope and includes a practical tip, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the high parameter count (18), full schema coverage, and presence of output schema and annotations, the description is adequate. It covers the main use case and a key scenario (inactive member search). Minor gaps: no mention of pagination or result default behavior, but output schema likely covers return values.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented. The description groups parameters into categories (text search, date ranges, booking/activity history, etc.) and highlights two parameters, but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 lists specific filter capabilities (text search, date ranges, booking/activity history, membership tier, tags) and distinguishes it from broader search tools like search_crm by focusing on member/account objects.

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 useful usage hint: 'Use lastBookingBefore/inactiveDays to find inactive members,' which guides parameter selection. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like search_crm or list_members, nor mention when not to use this tool.

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

All FavCRM 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.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources