Skip to main content
Glama

Sweeppea MCP

by com.sweeppea.mcp

count_participants

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get participant counts for a sweepstakes. Use fetch_sweepstakes first to get the sweepstakes_token. Supports filtering by type (all, participants, amoe, optouts) and date range.

count_participants

When to use

Get participant counts for a sweepstakes. Use fetch_sweepstakes first to get the sweepstakes_token. Supports filtering by type (all, participants, amoe, optouts) and date range.

Pre-calls required

  1. fetch_sweepstakes if the user gave you a sweepstakes name instead of a token

Parameters to validate before calling

  • sweepstakes_token (string, required) — The sweepstakes token (UUID format)

  • filter_type (string, optional) — one of: all, participants, amoe, optouts — Filter type: all (default), participants, amoe (alternate method of entry), or optouts

  • start_date (string, optional) — Start date filter (ISO 8601 format, e.g., 2025-01-01)

  • end_date (string, optional) — End date filter (ISO 8601 format, e.g., 2025-12-31)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_dateNoEnd date filter (ISO 8601 format, e.g., 2025-12-31)
start_dateNoStart date filter (ISO 8601 format, e.g., 2025-01-01)
filter_typeNoFilter type: all (default), participants, amoe (alternate method of entry), or optouts
sweepstakes_tokenYesThe sweepstakes token (UUID format)

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by mentioning the pre-call context and filter semantics, but it does not disclose other behavioral details like response format, date range inclusivity, or potential edge cases.

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 description is well-organized with headings, bullet points, and sections (When to use, Pre-calls required, Parameters to validate), making it scannable. The opening sentence is concise, but the subsequent markdown section repeats some of the same content, introducing slight redundancy.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description should explain return values, but it does not. It also omits details such as pagination or whether counts are broken down by filter type. For a simple count tool, this may be acceptable, but there is still a notable gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates parameters and adds minor clarifications (e.g., 'all (default)' for filter_type, ISO 8601 examples for dates), but this adds marginal value beyond the 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 'Get participant counts for a sweepstakes', identifying the specific verb and resource. The name 'count_participants' and the description distinguish this from sibling tools like fetch_participants (which retrieves individual records) by emphasizing aggregate counts.

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 pre-call guidance: 'Use fetch_sweepstakes first to get the sweepstakes_token.' It also explains filtering options and date range usage. However, it does not list alternative tools or when-not-to-use cases, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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