aidoo-mcp-server

aidoo_list_classes

List fitness classes from Aidoo, applying filters for course ID, trainer, room, or start date. Optionally expand with related data like bookings and trainer details.

Instructions

Liste alle Kurse auf oder filtere nach Kriterien.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "aidoo_list_classes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Kurs-ID
`limit`	No	Maximale Anzahl Ergebnisse
`offset`	No	Offset für Paging
`room_id`	No	Raum-ID
`max_begin`	No	Maximales Startdatum (YYYY-MM-DD)
`min_begin`	No	Minimales Startdatum (YYYY-MM-DD)
`extensions`	No	Verknüpfte Daten einschließen, z.B. ["trainer", "room", "bookings"]
`trainer_id`	No	Trainer-ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination behavior, default limits, filtering semantics, or return format. It only states the basic action without any extra context.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core function. Every word adds value, and there is no wasted phrasing. It is appropriately brief for a simple list operation.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has 8 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides no information about return values, pagination, or filtering behavior. The one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to use this tool effectively without additional assumptions.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, merely referencing 'criteria' without detailing any specific parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool lists all classes or filters by criteria, which is a specific action on a resource. It implicitly distinguishes from aidoo_get_class by using 'list' rather than 'get', but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage: list all classes or filter by criteria. It provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools like aidoo_get_schedule or aidoo_get_class, nor does it mention exclusions. The context is somewhat implied but not fully developed.

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