Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

HelpySelf

by com.helpyself
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Secret Santa Generator

secret_santa

Type in the names, keep couples apart, and give everyone a private link that shows only who they drew. A HelpySelf tool (helpyself.com).

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "people": "<people>"
    },
    "name": "secret_santa"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoA line shown to everybody, e.g. where and when you meet. Optional.
titleYesThe group's name, shown at the top of everybody's page: 'Family Christmas 2026'. Up to 80 characters.
budgetNoThe spending limit as people should read it, e.g. '€25' or 'around 200 kr'. Optional.
localeNoThe language of the people's pages: one of en, de, es, fi, fr, it, nl, pl, pt. Anything else gives English.
peopleYesEverybody taking part, 3 or more. Names are compared case-insensitively, so the same name twice is refused — add an initial to tell two Annas apart. How many one draw may hold depends on the caller's plan; a group over it is refused with the number.
exclusionsNoPairs who must not draw each other, such as couples. Works both ways. Every name must be one of `people`. Refused if the rules leave no possible draw.
exchangeDateNoThe day presents are exchanged, as YYYY-MM-DD. Optional.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-open-world write with no destructive effect, and the description adds genuine value by disclosing the privacy model ('a private link that shows only who they drew') and the fan-out to each participant. It stops short of saying whether the generated links are returned in the response, whether they expire, or that each call creates a fresh, different assignment (relevant given idempotentHint=false).

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The functional sentence is short, front-loaded, and maps directly onto the required inputs and the key behavioral promise. The trailing 'A HelpySelf tool (helpyself.com)' is brand boilerplate that consumes space without helping an agent decide or invoke, so it is not a 5.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, yet it never states that the tool returns the draw links (or in what form) — the single most important thing an agent needs to relay to users. Group-size limits and the ambiguity handling are covered in the schema, so those gaps are not the description's fault.

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%, so every parameter (title, people, exclusions, note, budget, locale, exchangeDate) is already explained in the schema with examples and constraints. The description only gestures at 'names' and 'couples', adding no format or edge-case detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names the concrete outcome: collect names, prevent couples from drawing each other, and distribute a private per-person link. That is specific enough for an agent to know this is a gift-exchange drawer rather than a generic randomizer. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like random_picker, wheel_of_names, or random_team_generator.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisite note, and no exclusions. The only usage-adjacent hint is 'keep couples apart', which maps to the exclusions parameter and is already documented in the schema. An agent must infer the gift-exchange scenario entirely from the tool name.

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

All HelpySelf toolsInspect
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