next_availableSoonest upcoming KARVE classes that still have an open spot, optionally matching an English query (e.g. 'transformer', 'Sarah', 'beginners'). Returns booking links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are limited to classes with open spots, results are restricted to upcoming soonest, and the output includes booking links. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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 efficiently conveys the core purpose, query flexibility, and output behavior without redundancy. There is no wasted content.
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 annotations and output schema cover safety and return shape, and the description covers core purpose and query semantics. However, the lack of explanation for 'limit' and 'withinDays', plus no explicit differentiation from siblings like search_classes, leaves moderate gaps for an otherwise simple 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'query' parameter with examples ('transformer', 'Sarah', 'beginners'), while 'limit' and 'withinDays' are completely unexplained. This is insufficient for a three-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 what the tool does: find soonest upcoming KARVE classes with open spots, optionally matching a query, and returns booking links. This distinguishes it from siblings like class_detail or search_classes by emphasizing availability and time urgency, though it doesn't name them directly.
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 usage when a user wants the soonest available classes that still have openings, and provides query examples. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus search_classes or class_detail, nor does it describe exclusions, so guidance remains implied rather than 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.
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.