Enroll a member in a class or change an enrollment status. Actions: enroll — enroll a member into a scheduled class change_status — change an enrollment's status (e.g. attended/cancelled)
[Flattened action: change_status]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| account | No |
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 disclose readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds little beyond that. It gives example statuses (attended/cancelled) but does not explain side effects of changing status, required permissions, or whether the change is reversible.
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 short and front-loaded, but the action list plus flattened-action note creates redundancy and ambiguity. It could be tighter and clearer by focusing only on the change_status action.
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?
This is a nested-object write tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, so the description should provide a fuller picture. It does not specify required data fields, valid status values beyond two examples, or expected behavior/errors, leaving significant gaps.
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%, and the data object is an unrestricted nested object, so the description must explain what keys/values are needed. It only says 'enroll a member into a scheduled class' or 'change status' without documenting the data payload or account field.
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 names a concrete operation ('change an enrollment's status') and gives examples, but the opening sentence also says 'Enroll a member in a class' and the action list includes enroll, which conflicts with the tool name and with sibling evo_activity_write_enroll. The '[Flattened action: change_status]' note partially clarifies but does not cleanly distinguish this tool from the enrollment tool.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. The description lists two actions but does not say when to choose this tool over evo_activity_write_enroll or when not to use it; the flattened-action note is the only hint that enroll is not actually available here.
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.
Several tools are duplicated with nearly identical descriptions, distinguished only by a '[Flattened action]' footnote (e.g. evo_activity_list vs. evo_activity_schedule, evo_member_get vs. evo_member_list, evo_prospect_write_create vs. evo_prospect_write_update). An agent would struggle to pick the correct one without parsing fine-print labels. authenticate and connect also blur the auth boundary.
The EVO tools use a rough 'evo_<noun>_<action>' pattern but mix verb positions and styles: evo_member_get, evo_list_accounts, evo_activity_schedule, evo_sales_create, evo_bank_accounts. Platform tools like authenticate, connect, report_bug, and marketplace abandon the evo_ prefix entirely, and the giant marketplace tool follows no naming convention.
26 tools is above the 15–25 'heavy' band, and several are redundant flattened variations that should be merged. The set also mixes domain-specific EVO tools with unrelated platform utilities (marketplace, toolkit_info, report_bug), inflating the count without coherent coverage.
The domain is gym management (members, activities, prospects, sales, receivables), but the surface has major gaps: no member create/update/delete, no activity-create or schedule management, and only partial write operations elsewhere. Some tools contain unresolved 'PROBE' prompts, indicating unfinished endpoints that agents cannot reliably use.