Skip to main content
Glama

Sweeppea MCP

by com.sweeppea.mcp

get_participant

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch full details of a single participant from a sweepstakes by token, email, or phone. At least one search parameter is required. Use fetch_sweepstakes first to get the sweepstakes_token. For listing participants, use fetch_participants instead. NEVER fabricate, invent, or hallucinate participant data under any circumstance. If no result is returned by the API, report exactly that — do not guess names, emails, or counts. Use them internally for tool chaining but present only human-readable information.

get_participant

When to use

Fetch full details of a single participant from a sweepstakes by token, email, or phone. At least one search parameter is required. Use fetch_sweepstakes first to get the sweepstakes_token. For listing participants, use fetch_participants instead. NEVER fabricate, invent, or hallucinate participant data under any circumstance. If no result is returned by the API, report exactly that — do not guess names, emails, or counts. Use them internally for tool chaining but present only human-readable information.

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)

  • participant_token (string, optional) — The participant token (UUID format) - use this OR email OR phone

  • email (string, optional) — Participant email address - use this OR participant_token OR phone

  • phone (string, optional) — Participant phone number (10 digits) - use this OR participant_token OR email

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoParticipant email address - use this OR participant_token OR phone
phoneNoParticipant phone number (10 digits) - use this OR participant_token OR email
participant_tokenNoThe participant token (UUID format) - use this OR email OR phone
sweepstakes_tokenYesThe sweepstakes token (UUID format)

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds a valuable anti-hallucination directive: 'NEVER fabricate, invent, or hallucinate participant data' and 'If no result is returned by the API, report exactly that.' It also clarifies that tokens are for internal chaining while only human-readable information should be presented, which goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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 bloated and repetitive. The opening paragraph is restated almost verbatim under '# get_participant' and '## When to use,' and the parameter validation section duplicates the input schema's descriptions. This redundancy wastes tokens and makes the description longer than necessary, though the headings do provide some organization.

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?

Despite the repetition, the description covers key contextual needs: pre-calls, required search parameter, alternative tools, and behavior in no-result scenarios. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the phrase 'Fetch full details' and the caution about not guessing names, emails, or counts, giving an agent enough context to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the cross-parameter constraint 'At least one search parameter is required,' which is not captured by the schema's individual parameter descriptions. However, much of the parameter section simply repeats the schema text, so the added value is modest.

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 opens with 'Fetch full details of a single participant from a sweepstakes by token, email, or phone,' which clearly identifies the resource, action, and search modalities. It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by directing list operations to fetch_participants and prerequisite fetch_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 context: requires the sweepstakes token, states 'At least one search parameter is required,' and names the exact alternative for listing participants ('For listing participants, use fetch_participants instead'). It also lists a pre-call requirement, giving an agent clear invocation sequencing.

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