Create or update a prospect/lead. Actions: create — new prospect (name + at least one contact) update — edit an existing prospect (requires id_prospect)
[Flattened action: create]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| No | |||
| phone | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| id_branch | No | ||
| id_prospect | 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 indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but no idempotentHint. The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the action list, such as whether update is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or any validation requirements. It adds minimal context beyond the annotations.
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 and structured with a clear action list. It front-loads the primary purpose and provides a compact action breakdown. However, the '[Flattened action: create]' line is somewhat redundant and could be omitted without loss.
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 the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the 'data' object, the meaning of fields like account or id_branch, or the expected response. The description is adequate for a simple create but insufficient for the complexity of the schema.
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 description does not explain any parameters beyond mentioning 'name + at least one contact' for create and 'id_prospect' for update. The 'data' object is completely unexplained, and other fields like email, phone, account, id_branch are not described. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 the tool creates or updates a prospect/lead, with distinct actions for create and update. It distinguishes from siblings like evo_prospect_write_update by covering both actions, though the flattened action is create. The verb 'create/update' is specific to the resource 'prospect/lead'.
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 description provides basic guidance on when to use create vs update (requires id_prospect for update), but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over siblings like evo_prospect_write_update or evo_prospect. The context is implied but not fully explicit.
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.