remove_member_setupEnd a member's producer setup in one tap (prospective — sold tickets and attached events keep their terms; its event exceptions end with it). Requires deal_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | ||
| deal_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?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: that sold tickets and attached events keep their terms, while event exceptions end. This exceeds what annotations alone 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. However, it omits the reason parameter, which is an important missing detail. While concise, it sacrifices completeness.
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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description explains the effect on tickets and events but lacks information on return values, side effects beyond what is mentioned, or any required permissions. It is moderately complete.
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?
The schema has two parameters (deal_id, reason) with 0% coverage in description. The description only mentions deal_id as required, completely omitting the optional 'reason' parameter. The schema provides structure but no semantic explanation. The description fails to add meaningful guidance for the reason parameter.
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 uses specific verbs ('end a member's producer setup') and resource ('member setup'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like 'update_member_setup' or 'grant_member_setup'. It also clarifies key details about what remains (sold tickets) and what ends (event exceptions).
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 states a prerequisite ('requires deal_id') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_member_setup' or 'decline_deal'. It does not include explicit when-not-to-use or contextual exclusions.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, particularly the generic create_production_item vs specific add_* tools (e.g., add_role, add_meal). This creates ambiguity, as agents may struggle to choose between generic and specific counterparts. Additionally, similar verbs like 'add', 'create', and 'bulk_create' blur boundaries.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (add_guest, list_events), but there are inconsistencies: 'bulk_create_promo_codes' instead of 'create_bulk_promo_codes', mix of 'list' and 'get' (list_events vs get_account_status), and varied verbs like 'set', 'update', 'delete', 'archive', 'unarchive', 'reorder'. Overall pattern recognizable but not uniform.
115 tools is excessive for most domains, including event management. While the domain is complex, this granularity overwhelms agents and makes selection difficult. The tool count far exceeds typical well-scoped servers (3-15), indicating poor abstraction.
The tool set covers an extensive range of event management activities: events, tickets, guests, affiliates, discounts, production items, forms, communities, sponsors, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct event deletion, only cancellation), but overall the surface is comprehensive for the stated purpose.