Read gym members. Actions: list — search/paginate members (filter by name/email/document/status) get — fetch one or more members by id (member_ids)
[Flattened action: get]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| skip | No | ||
| take | No | ||
| No | |||
| status | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| document | No | ||
| member_ids | No |
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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds some behavioral clarity by showing that list is paginated and get supports multiple IDs, but it does not disclose output shape, missing-ID behavior, or any side effects or caveats beyond what annotations provide.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core intent, then flows from list to get and ends with the flattened action note. Every sentence or bullet adds meaningful context without redundant filler.
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?
This is a reasonably simple read-only tool, and the description covers the high-level purpose and entry arguments. Still, the absence of an output schema and any return-value note, combined with the unclear role of account and the overlap with evo_member_list, leaves the agent with noticeable unanswered questions for a tool with 8 parameters.
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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It helpfully ties name, email, document, and status to the list action and member_ids to the get action. However, it does not explain skip, take, or account, and the relationship between the flattened get action and the list-related parameters remains unclear.
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 opens with 'Read gym members', which clearly states a read-oriented purpose and resource. It then distinguishes the two main operations (list/search vs get-by-id). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool evo_member_list, and the '[Flattened action: get]' adds a bit of ambiguity about whether the list action is actually available.
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 usage context by describing when list versus get is appropriate: list for search/pagination and get for fetching by member_ids. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over evo_member_list or evo_member_count, and it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative-tool 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.
Several tools are duplicated with nearly identical descriptions, distinguished only by a '[Flattened action]' footnote (e.g. evo_activity_list vs. evo_activity_schedule, evo_member_get vs. evo_member_list, evo_prospect_write_create vs. evo_prospect_write_update). An agent would struggle to pick the correct one without parsing fine-print labels. authenticate and connect also blur the auth boundary.
The EVO tools use a rough 'evo_<noun>_<action>' pattern but mix verb positions and styles: evo_member_get, evo_list_accounts, evo_activity_schedule, evo_sales_create, evo_bank_accounts. Platform tools like authenticate, connect, report_bug, and marketplace abandon the evo_ prefix entirely, and the giant marketplace tool follows no naming convention.
26 tools is above the 15–25 'heavy' band, and several are redundant flattened variations that should be merged. The set also mixes domain-specific EVO tools with unrelated platform utilities (marketplace, toolkit_info, report_bug), inflating the count without coherent coverage.
The domain is gym management (members, activities, prospects, sales, receivables), but the surface has major gaps: no member create/update/delete, no activity-create or schedule management, and only partial write operations elsewhere. Some tools contain unresolved 'PROBE' prompts, indicating unfinished endpoints that agents cannot reliably use.