list_classesList class sessions in a Pacific-time date range (default: today) with booked counts. Filter by instructor or class name. [requires scope: read]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date_to | No | YYYY-MM-DD inclusive. Default = date_from. | |
| date_from | No | YYYY-MM-DD (Pacific). Default today. | |
| class_name | No | Class name fragment (optional) | |
| instructor | No | Instructor first or last name (optional) |
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=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: Pacific-time date handling, default-to-today behavior, booked counts, and the required 'read' scope. This gives an agent useful non-obvious context without contradicting the annotations.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and scope, then appends the most important context (default today, filters, read scope). No filler or repetition of schema details.
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?
For a simple optional-parameter list tool, the description plus schema covers how to call it: date range, timezone, defaults, filters, and scope. Since there is no output schema, the description's mention of 'booked counts' provides some return expectation, but exact output fields, ordering, or pagination are not disclosed, leaving minor completeness gaps.
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%, so each parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description adds date-range and filter meaning but does not substantially enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides; the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('class sessions') with date range, booked counts, and filter options. It is obviously a read/list operation and inherently distinguishable from tools like get_class_roster or get_instructor_schedule, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.
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 provides clear context: date range defaulting to today, Pacific time, and optional filters for instructor or class name. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of related ones like get_instructor_schedule, get_class_roster, or attendance_report, leaving the comparison to inference.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and the descriptions carefully separate operations like attendance_report, list_classes, and get_class_roster. A few reads overlap conceptually (get_client, get_reservation_history, get_credit_history, get_client_notes all return client-related data), but each has a specific output that an agent can distinguish with reasonable effort.
Tool names overwhelmingly follow a consistent action_object pattern: add_client_note, cancel_class, freeze_membership, refund_order, set_client_tag, unfreeze_membership. The get_/list_ prefix distinction is used predictably, and auth tools (login, logout, whoami) are standard exceptions rather than inconsistent naming.
41 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold for a heavy tool set. Although each tool appears to serve a real studio-operations need, the sheer number creates a large surface for an agent to navigate and places significant burden on selection accuracy.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle well across clients, classes, memberships, orders, payments, and communications, with no obvious dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no update_client profile tool and no class-scheduling creation, but staff workflows can generally be completed.