Skip to main content
Glama

check_in_gym_member

Check a member in at the front desk. Returns whether it was a duplicate, the classes they were marked into and their membership status. (confirm-gated: previews until confirm: true)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "organizationId": "<organizationId>",
      "userId": "<userId>"
    },
    "name": "check_in_gym_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userIdYes
confirmNoMust be true to actually execute. If false/omitted, returns a preview only.
organizationIdYesGym id (from list_my_organizations)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the single readOnlyHint=false annotation by disclosing the confirm-gate preview semantics and the return payload (duplicate flag, classes auto-enrolled, membership status). It stops short of saying what happens to the member's state on a duplicate or what permissions the caller needs.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return shape, then the gating rule. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates return fields, and it explains the two-phase confirm behavior for a mutating tool whose only annotation is readOnlyHint=false. Remaining gaps (duplicate handling, permission requirements, membership-expiry failure modes) are minor but real.

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 67%: organizationId and confirm are already documented in the schema, and userId is undocumented in both places. The description's 'previews until confirm: true' reinforces the confirm parameter but adds nothing new, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('check a member in at the front desk'), which is more specific than the generic create_checkin/add_checkin_log siblings. It does not name those siblings or explain the boundary, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

'At the front desk' implies the kiosk/reception scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to alternatives like create_checkin or add_member_to_gym_class_session. The agent must infer which check-in tool is appropriate.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.