Skip to main content
Glama

get_entry_fields

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get all form fields for a sweepstakes entry page. Use fetch_sweepstakes first to get the sweepstakes_token. Call this before add_participant to discover required fields. Returns field names, types, and whether they are required.

get_entry_fields

When to use

Get all form fields for a sweepstakes entry page. Use fetch_sweepstakes first to get the sweepstakes_token. Call this before add_participant to discover required fields. Returns field names, types, and whether they are required.

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)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sweepstakes_tokenYesThe sweepstakes token (UUID format)

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by revealing the return content ('Returns field names, types, and whether they are required') and the dependency on fetch_sweepstakes. No contradictions 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is well-structured with headers and sections, but the content is redundant: the first paragraph is nearly identical to the 'When to use' section. This duplication wastes space and slightly blurs the document. Still, it is not excessively verbose.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what it returns, the required precondition, and the intended workflow position relative to other tools. No gaps linger.

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% for the single parameter, with the parameter description already stating 'The sweepstakes token (UUID format)'. The tool description's Parameters section repeats exactly this, adding no new semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Get all form fields for a sweepstakes entry page.' It uses a specific verb+resource construction and explicitly distinguishes its role from related tools by noting it should be called before add_participant to discover required fields.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'Use fetch_sweepstakes first to get the sweepstakes_token' and 'Call this before add_participant to discover required fields.' It also provides a concrete pre-call condition: 'fetch_sweepstakes if the user gave you a sweepstakes name instead of a token.'

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

Try in Browser

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