class_detailFull detail for one KARVE class by its idSchedule (from search_classes' JSON): description, trainer, studio, live availability, and a booking link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| idSchedule | Yes | ||
| withinDays | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| header | Yes | ||
| classes | Yes |
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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (description, trainer, studio, live availability, booking link), which is useful context about the tool's behavior. No contradictions or additional caveats are needed.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and then lists the return content. No wasted words; every clause contributes meaning.
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?
The description gives the core purpose, input source, and return fields, which is adequate for a read-only detail tool with an output schema. However, the undefined withinDays parameter and lack of explicit guidance about when to use this vs siblings leave some gaps in context.
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?
The schema has zero descriptions for parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains idSchedule (from search_classes' JSON) but does not explain withinDays, leaving an optional parameter with unclear semantics. This is a significant gap for a two-parameter tool.
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 returns full detail for a single KARVE class, identifying the key input (idSchedule) and listing the content (description, trainer, studio, live availability, booking link). It distinguishes from siblings by indicating it operates on one class and references search_classes for the id. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', so it is not a perfect 5.
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 implies the use case: after search_classes returns a list, use this tool with an idSchedule to get full details. This gives clear context for when to use it, but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like next_available or studio_info. That aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions'.
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.
Each tool has a clear role: class_detail for specific class info, next_available for soonest openings, search_classes for full schedule, and studio_info for general facts. Slight overlap between next_available and search_classes is mitigated by distinct purposes: one finds the soonest open class, the other lists the schedule.
All names use snake_case and are readable, but the pattern is mixed: class_detail and studio_info are noun-based, next_available is adjective-based, and search_classes is verb-based. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
Four tools is well-scoped for a read-only booking information server, covering schedule, availability, class details, and studio info without redundancy. It is within the typical 3-15 range and each tool earns its place.
The set covers core browsing needs: schedule lookup, finding available classes, getting full class details, and studio policies. It lacks actual booking or cancellation actions, but the descriptions indicate it is designed to provide information and booking links rather than handle transactions, so this is an acceptable scope.