FreeDailyPro Tools

business_donation_receipt

Read-onlyIdempotent

Donation receipt maker from freedailypro

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "organizationName": "<organizationName>",
      "ein": "<ein>",
      "donorName": "<donorName>",
      "date": "<date>"
    },
    "name": "business_donation_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ein`	Yes	The charity's Employer Identification Number, 9 digits (12-3456789 or 123456789). Printed on the receipt; a malformed number is a 422.
`date`	Yes	Date the gift was received, YYYY-MM-DD, a real date.
`amount`	No	Cash: the total the donor paid, in US dollars. Needed for cash. For two $150 tickets send 300.
`donorName`	Yes	Who gave.
`eventName`	No	Event or campaign, for example 'Spring Gala'.
`signerName`	No	Who signs for the charity.
`includeDocx`	No	true also returns the receipt as a Word file in result.docx (filename, contentType, base64).
`signerTitle`	No	Signer's title.
`donorAddress`	No	Donor address (optional).
`exemptionType`	No	Section of the Internal Revenue Code that exempts the charity. Default 501(c)(3).
`receiptNumber`	No	Your receipt number.
`contributionType`	No	cash (default) states the amount; noncash describes the property and states no value, as the IRS requires.
`goodsAndServices`	No	What the donor received in return (dinner, ticket, merchandise). Leave out when nothing was given. The deductible amount is the amount paid less their value.
`organizationName`	Yes	The charity's legal name.
`organizationAddress`	No	Charity address, printed under the name.
`propertyDescription`	No	Non-cash: what was given. Needed for noncash. Do not put a value on it.
`intangibleReligiousBenefitsOnly`	No	true when the only benefit was intangible religious benefits (for a religious organization); prints that statement instead of a goods and services list.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 1, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond them — no mention that it returns a generated receipt document, that includeDocx yields a Word file, or that validation failures produce a 422. For a 17-parameter document generator with no output schema, this is a total gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short, front-loaded phrase with no filler, so it isn't bloated — but the brevity comes from omission rather than economy. There is no structure to speak of.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 17 parameters, conditional requirements (amount for cash, propertyDescription for noncash), no output schema, and a legally sensitive output, the description supplies none of the context an agent needs. Everything must be reconstructed from the schema alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the per-parameter text is unusually rich (EIN format, cash vs. noncash semantics, goods-and-services deduction math), so the schema carries semantics entirely. The description adds no parameter information; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Donation receipt maker from freedailypro" only restates the tool name plus a vendor tag; it never says it generates an IRS-compliant donation receipt from the supplied fields. Nothing distinguishes it from the many other document-generating siblings (business_receipt, business_bill_of_sale_draft) or indicates the output format.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (EIN, date of gift), or which sibling to pick instead. The phrase "from freedailypro" is a brand note, not usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All FreeDailyPro Tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?