Skip to main content
Glama

Sweeppea MCP

by com.sweeppea.mcp

clone_sweepstakes

Clone an existing sweepstakes with new parameters. Use fetch_sweepstakes first to get the handler of the sweepstakes to clone. Creates a complete copy including entry pages, calendar events, short links, groups, and all configurations. CRITICAL: This is a billable operation. ALWAYS confirm with the user before cloning. NEVER clone multiple sweepstakes in batch or loops without explicit user approval for each one. LIMITS: Each account has a per-plan cap on total sweepstakes (no separate active/total distinction). Before cloning, call get_plan to know the user's actual MaxSweepstakesAllowed, then fetch_sweepstakes to count current usage. If the user is at or near the cap, warn them before proceeding (e.g., "you have 9 of 10 sweepstakes allowed by your plan"). Ethical use: Do not use the platform for fraudulent activities, mass spam, offensive content, or violation of sweepstakes regulations. Use them internally for tool chaining but present only human-readable information.

clone_sweepstakes

When to use

Clone an existing sweepstakes with new parameters. Use fetch_sweepstakes first to get the handler of the sweepstakes to clone. Creates a complete copy including entry pages, calendar events, short links, groups, and all configurations. CRITICAL: This is a billable operation. ALWAYS confirm with the user before cloning. NEVER clone multiple sweepstakes in batch or loops without explicit user approval for each one. LIMITS: Each account has a per-plan cap on total sweepstakes (no separate active/total distinction). Before cloning, call get_plan to know the user's actual MaxSweepstakesAllowed, then fetch_sweepstakes to count current usage. If the user is at or near the cap, warn them before proceeding (e.g., "you have 9 of 10 sweepstakes allowed by your plan"). Ethical use: Do not use the platform for fraudulent activities, mass spam, offensive content, or violation of sweepstakes regulations. Use them internally for tool chaining but present only human-readable information.

Parameters to validate before calling

  • handler (string, required) — The identifier (handler) of the original sweepstakes to clone

  • handler_new (string, required) — The unique identifier (handler) for the newly created sweepstakes

  • sweepstakes_name (string, required) — Display name for the cloned sweepstakes

  • start_date (string, required) — Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format

  • end_date (string, required) — End date in YYYY-MM-DD format

  • start_time (string, required) — Start time in HH:MM format (24-hour)

  • end_time (string, required) — End time in HH:MM format (24-hour)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
handlerYesThe identifier (handler) of the original sweepstakes to clone
end_dateYesEnd date in YYYY-MM-DD format
end_timeYesEnd time in HH:MM format (24-hour)
start_dateYesStart date in YYYY-MM-DD format
start_timeYesStart time in HH:MM format (24-hour)
handler_newYesThe unique identifier (handler) for the newly created sweepstakes
sweepstakes_nameYesDisplay name for the cloned sweepstakes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: the operation is billable, there is a per-plan cap on total sweepstakes, and user confirmation is mandatory. It also describes the complete copy nature (entry pages, calendar events, etc.). These details add significant context that annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true) do not convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is repetitive: the exact same 'When to use' content appears twice, both before and after the heading. It also includes lengthy ethical disclaimers and tool-chaining remarks that are not directly necessary for tool invocation. While front-loaded with key info, the redundancy and verbosity hurt conciseness.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers prerequisites, billing, limits, confirmation workflow, and copy scope comprehensively. However, with no output schema, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the cloned sweepstakes object) or potential error conditions. For a mutation tool, this is a minor omission, but the description is otherwise thorough.

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?

The input schema already documents all 7 parameters with full descriptions and formats (100% coverage). The 'Parameters to validate' section repeats this information verbatim without adding new semantics or constraints. Therefore, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance parameter understanding further.

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 'Clone an existing sweepstakes with new parameters' and enumerates exactly what is copied (entry pages, calendar events, short links, groups, and all configurations). This specific verb+resource framing distinguishes it from siblings like create_sweepstakes and update_sweepstakes.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: call fetch_sweepstakes first to obtain the handler, check plan limits via get_plan, confirm with the user before each clone, and never batch without approval. This goes above and beyond typical usage instructions and clearly differentiates from alternative tools.

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

All Sweeppea MCP 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern (fetch_* for lists, get_* for single items, create/update/delete for writes), making them distinguishable. A few near-overlaps exist (fetch_billing_transactions vs fetch_wallet_transactions, draw_winners vs schedule_drawing) but the descriptions clarify the boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case verb_noun, with fetch_ for list operations and get_ for single-item retrieval. Some verb variation (add_participant, count_participants, draw_winners, schedule_drawing) deviates from the dominant create/fetch/update/delete pattern but remains predictable and readable.

Tool Count1/5

With 83 tools, this is far beyond a well-scoped server (typically 3-15, with 25+ considered too many). Even though the platform has broad functionality, the sheer number of tools creates significant agent confusion and selection overhead.

Completeness4/5

The sweepstakes domain is thoroughly covered: lifecycle management, participants, groups, rules, drawings, winners, calendar, notes, todos, tickets, surveys, invoices, billing, files, and entry settings. A few minor gaps exist (e.g., no general participant field update, no archive action) but the surface is remarkably complete for its scope.

Resources