Nas.com MCP

Declare Challenge Winners

declare_challenge_winners

Declare or unset challenge winners. Requires confirm set to DECLARE_WINNERS. Before offering this action or requesting its inputs, check business permissions. FREE businesses cannot use this tool, regardless of individual feature rows. Call check_business_tool_access before collecting inputs. Show any grace-period warning and verified resubscribe link before continuing, and never proceed when access is blocked.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No
`winners`	Yes
`challengeId`	Yes
`communityId`	Yes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature. The description adds important behavioral context: required confirm value, permission checks, free business inability, and grace-period warning. This goes beyond annotations but still lacks details on side effects or error states.

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 extremely concise: 4 sentences, each adding essential info. No filler or repetition. Front-loaded with verb and resource.

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?

Given no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers prerequisites and safety but omits parameter details (except confirm) and return value. It mentions grace-period warning but doesn't specify what it looks like. Adequate but with noticeable gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It only explains the 'confirm' parameter (must be 'DECLARE_WINNERS'), but ignores communityId, challengeId, and the winners array structure (participantObjectId, declareWinner). This leaves agents guessing about the majority of parameters.

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 clearly states the action: 'Declare or unset challenge winners'. It uses a specific verb (declare/unset) and resource (challenge winners), distinguishing it from siblings like award_challenge_checkpoint_points or update_challenge.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage context: requires confirm set to DECLARE_WINNERS, check business permissions, free business restriction, and pre-access steps. However, it does not contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use award_challenge_checkpoint_points vs this tool), so not a full 5.

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

All Nas.com MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Many tools are semantically identical, distinguished only by 'business' vs 'community' prefixes, and descriptions explicitly state they are interchangeable. This creates ambiguity for agent selection. Examples include add_business_admins/add_community_admins and get_business/get_community.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tools generally follow a verb_noun pattern, but the inconsistent use of 'business' vs 'community' for the same entities breaks the pattern. While individual naming is clear, the overall set lacks uniformity.

Tool Count1/5

With 423 tools, the server is massively over-scoped. The high count is driven by redundant 'business' and 'community' variants and many niche operations. A more focused surface would be far more manageable.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a broad range of features including CRUD operations for multiple product types, analytics, payments, messaging, and integrations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., missing update for some entity types), but overall domain coverage is strong.

Resources

Need Help?