Skip to main content
Glama

sponsorable

by com.sponsorable

Reveal Contact

reveal_contact
DestructiveIdempotent

Spend 1 credit to reveal a contact's full name, email, and LinkedIn URL. The unlock is permanent and org-wide: revealing an already-unlocked contact is free and never double-charges. Check the contact's has_email/has_linkedin fields from list_sponsor_contacts first so you know what the credit buys. Ask the user before revealing unless they already told you to, then set confirmed=true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe sponsor's domain
confirmedYesSet true only after the user explicitly authorizes spending a credit
contact_idYesThe contact_id from list_sponsor_contacts

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses credit cost, permanent org-wide unlock, and idempotency (no double charge). This adds significant value beyond annotations, which already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. No contradiction.

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?

Description is compact (4 sentences) and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, then cost, then pre-check, then usage rule. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers all key aspects: cost, permanence, idempotency, pre-check requirement, and user confirmation. With annotations providing additional hints, the description is fully adequate for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema has 100% coverage, but description adds behavioral context for 'confirmed' parameter (ask user, set true only after authorization). This enhances understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 ('reveal a contact's full name, email, and LinkedIn URL') and the resource ('contact'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_sponsor_contacts by specifying that this tool reveals hidden details.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit guidance on when to use: check has_email/has_linkedin first, ask user for confirmation unless pre-authorized. This provides clear context for appropriate usage and when to avoid, mentioning alternative (list_sponsor_contacts).

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

All sponsorable toolsInspect
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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear, distinct purposes. Overlap exists between search/search_sponsors and fetch/get_sponsor, but descriptions clarify the different use cases (deep-research compatibility vs. full structured queries). Overall, an agent can reliably differentiate tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun (e.g., create_list, get_sponsor), but two tools (fetch, search) are single verbs without a noun, breaking consistency. This introduces minor confusion about their scope.

Tool Count4/5

17 tools is a reasonable number for a podcast sponsorship database, covering search, retrieval, list management, and contact operations. It's not overly heavy nor too thin for the domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers primary operations: searching sponsors/podcasts, retrieving details, managing lists, and handling contacts. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to update sponsor data, but that's likely read-only), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources