Skip to main content
Glama
StonishVicer

gym-ops MCP server

by StonishVicer

find_members

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up gym members by name or status to identify a member or list those with a given status. Returns id, name, status, plan, and membership end date.

Instructions

Look up gym members by name and/or status.

Use this to identify a member (e.g. before discussing their payments) or to list members with a given status. Returns, ordered by name: member_id, full_name, status (active, frozen, cancelled), and their current membership's plan (monthly, quarterly, annual, student) and end date (YYYY-MM-DD). "Current" is the membership that ends last. Contact details (email, phone) are never returned.

name_query is a case-insensitive substring match on the full name ('ana' matches 'Dana' and 'Diana'); % and _ are literal characters. limit is 1-50 (default 20); truncated is true if more members matched.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum members to return (1-50).
statusNoOnly include members with this status. Omit for any status.
name_queryNoCase-insensitive substring of the member's full name, e.g. 'smith'. Matched literally: % and _ are not wildcards. Omit to list all members.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
membersYes
truncatedYesTrue if more members matched than `limit`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing ordering by name, exact return fields, the definition of 'current' membership, the exclusion of contact details, case-insensitive literal matching, limit bounds, and the truncated flag. This is rich behavioral detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and use cases, followed by dense but relevant behavioral and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundant schema repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Together with the full input schema, rich annotations, and output schema, the description covers return shape, ordering, current-membership semantics, privacy exclusions, and input behavior. Nothing needed for correct invocation appears missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Even though the schema already describes all parameters, the description adds crucial semantics: name_query is a case-insensitive substring with % and _ treated literally, limit is 1-50 with default 20, and truncated indicates additional matches. This meaningfully exceeds the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Look up gym members by name and/or status.' It also gives distinct use cases (identify a member, list members by status) that clearly separate it from siblings like list_unpaid_members and get_class_occupancy.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: identify a member before discussing payments, or list members with a given status. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the provided use cases give clear context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.