Find gym members eligible to add to a class (by name/email).
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": {
"classId": "<classId>"
},
"name": "search_gym_class_members"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | ||
| classId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds one non-obvious behavioral trait: results are pre-filtered to members already eligible for the class. It says nothing about result caps, pagination, or matching behavior (partial vs exact), which matters for a search tool.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the qualifier that most affects result interpretation ('eligible to add to a class') appears before the search-field detail.
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?
No output schema exists, so the agent gets no view of return shape, result ordering, or limits, and the description does not fill that gap. The eligibility semantics are the biggest unexplained piece for a tool whose whole value is a filtered candidate list.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: 'search' is explained as name/email matching and 'classId' is implicitly explained as the class whose eligibility rules are applied. It stops short of stating that 'search' is optional or whether matching is substring-based.
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?
States a specific verb ('find') and resource ('gym members') with a scoping qualifier ('eligible to add to a class') and the search dimensions (name/email). This distinguishes it from add_member_to_gym_class_session and the list_* member tools, though it never explains what 'eligible' excludes.
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 purpose implies the natural workflow — search here, then add via add_member_to_gym_class_session — but no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or prerequisite is given. An agent must infer that this is the pre-add lookup step rather than a general member directory search.
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.