Read gym members. Actions: list — search/paginate members (filter by name/email/document/status) get — fetch one or more members by id (member_ids)
[Flattened action: list]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| skip | No | ||
| take | No | ||
| No | |||
| status | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| document | No | ||
| member_ids | 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that list can filter by name/email/document/status and get fetches by member_ids, which is helpful. It doesn't mention pagination behavior details beyond the schema, but since annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.
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 concise with a clear structure: one-line summary followed by bullet-like list of actions. The '[Flattened action: list]' instruction is a bit vestigial but doesn't waste much space. It's front-loaded with the main purpose.
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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main actions but omits details on pagination (skip/take defaults), the 'account' parameter, and what the response contains. With read-only annotations, it's adequate but not thorough; more explanation of filter semantics and output would push it higher.
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 compensate. The description names the filterable fields (name, email, document, status) and the member_ids parameter for get, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it doesn't explain the meaning of skip/take/account or the exact format of member_ids, so it partially compensates but leaves gaps.
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 'Read gym members' and outlines two actions: list and get, with list as the primary action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like evo_member_get (which is likely the 'get' action) and evo_get_member_count, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives.
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?
It lists the actions and their purposes (list for search/paginate, get for fetching by ids), implying when to use each. However, it doesn't provide explicit context on when to prefer this tool over siblings like evo_member_get, and it doesn't mention any exclusions or specific scenarios.
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.