mindbody_get_class_visitsGet one class with its visits — the roster of clients booked into it, with sign-in / late-cancel status. Mindbody: GET /class/classvisits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| class_id | Yes | The class id (from mindbody_list_classes). | |
| last_modified_date | No | Only visits modified on or after this date — ISO 8601, e.g. 2026-10-01 or 2026-10-01T09:00:00. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the payload is a roster of booked clients with sign-in and late-cancel status, plus the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or authorization.
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 carrying the purpose plus the roster clarification, followed by the API endpoint reference. No filler; every clause earns its place.
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 description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does so adequately by naming the roster and the status fields. It leaves secondary details (pagination, whether unbooked visits appear) unspecified, which is a minor gap for a two-parameter read tool.
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 100%: class_id is documented with its source (mindbody_list_classes) and last_modified_date with ISO 8601 format and an example. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb and resource ('Get one class with its visits') plus an immediate gloss that disambiguates the ambiguous term 'visits' as the client roster with sign-in/late-cancel status. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list tools such as mindbody_list_client_visits and mindbody_list_classes.
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?
Usage is implied by the phrasing (fetch the roster for a single class), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over mindbody_list_client_visits or mindbody_list_class_schedules, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
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.