List receivables (contas a receber). Filter by date/status (PROBE: confirm param names).
Bulk support: accepts member_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| take | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| member_id | No | ||
| member_ids | No | ||
| start_date | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety is known. The description adds context about filtering by date/status and bulk support, which is beyond the annotations but not deeply detailed. It doesn't disclose return format or pagination behavior, but the safety profile is covered by annotations. No contradiction detected.
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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the core action. However, including 'PROBE: confirm param names' is a developer note that adds noise without value for an agent. It is concise but incomplete, and the probe note reduces overall quality.
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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return structure, pagination (skip/take), or all filter options. The mention of 'status' is misleading since no status parameter exists. The bulk support hint is useful but not enough to cover the tool's complexity.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions date filtering (start_date/end_date) and member_ids for bulk, but ignores other parameters (skip, take, account, member_id). The 'PROBE' note indicates uncertainty about param names, undermining reliability. Does not explain date formats or relationships between member_id and member_ids.
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?
Clearly states 'List receivables' with a specific resource, and mentions filtering by date/status. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling list tools like evo_sales or evo_entries, though the resource name itself differentiates. The 'PROBE' note adds uncertainty but does not obscure the core purpose.
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?
Implied usage for listing receivables, with a hint about bulk support via member_ids. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are given, but the description does mention filtering options and batched execution, which provides some usage context. No exclusions or comparisons to other tools.
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.