evo_prospect
Read-onlyIdempotent
List prospects/leads (CRM).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| skip | No | ||
| take | No | ||
| No | |||
| account | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| start_date | No |
EVO Academia
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no behavioral context such as pagination, filtering limitations, result ordering, or what data is returned. It simply repeats the list operation without enriching transparency.
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 with the verb front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary fluff, making it easy to parse.
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?
This is a 7-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal description. The description is too sparse to inform an agent about optional filters, pagination semantics, date range handling, or expected results. It is minimally viable for identifying the operation but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description does not explain any of them. It does not mention that email/name/account/start_date/end_date act as filters or that skip/take control pagination.
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 states a specific action ('List') on a specific resource ('prospects/leads') and clarifies the domain ('CRM'). It clearly distinguishes reads from the sibling write tools evo_prospect_write_create and evo_prospect_write_update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling tools, nor does it mention alternatives or filtering utilities. There is no contextual guidance beyond 'list prospects/leads.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation1/5
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.
Naming Consistency2/5
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.
Tool Count2/5
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.
Completeness2/5
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.