move_client_to_classMove a client from one class session to another (cancels the first, then books the second using their available membership/credits). [requires scope: book]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | Yes | ||
| to_class_session_id | Yes | ||
| from_class_session_id | 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?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the exact side-effect order: the original class is cancelled first, and the new class is booked using membership/credits. It also states the required scope ('book'), giving the agent useful operational context.
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 entire description is one well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds behavioral detail in a parenthetical. The scope requirement is appended cleanly. There is no waste.
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 is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, explaining the operation, the sequence, the credit dependency, and the required scope. It does not mention failure behavior, such as what happens if the second booking fails after the first is cancelled, but this is a minor gap.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the semantic load. It maps the parameters clearly: moving a client from one class session (from_class_session_id) to another (to_class_session_id), and identifies that client_id refers to the client being moved.
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 states a specific action: moving a client from one class session to another, and clearly describes the mechanism ('cancels the first, then books the second'). This distinguishes it from related tools like add_client_to_class, remove_client_from_class, and cancel_class.
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 correct scenario for use, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like add_client_to_class or remove_client_from_class. A capable agent can infer the use case, but it lacks explicit routing guidance.
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.