Skip to main content
Glama

Sweeppea MCP

by com.sweeppea.mcp

update_group

Idempotent

Update the name of an existing group within a sweepstakes. Use fetch_sweepstakes first to get the sweepstakes_token, then fetch_groups to get the group_token.

update_group

When to use

Update the name of an existing group within a sweepstakes. Use fetch_sweepstakes first to get the sweepstakes_token, then fetch_groups to get the group_token.

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)

  • group_token (string, required) — The group token to update (UUID format)

  • group_name (string, required) — The new name for the group (must be unique within the sweepstakes)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
group_nameYesThe new name for the group (must be unique within the sweepstakes)
group_tokenYesThe group token to update (UUID format)
sweepstakes_tokenYesThe sweepstakes token (UUID format)

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying the uniqueness constraint for group_name and the required pre-call sequence. It does not contradict 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 clear sections, but it contains redundancy: the first paragraph and the 'When to use' section repeat the exact same sentence. This repetition inflates length without adding value, preventing a higher score.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and parameter constraints well. It does not mention the return value or response format, but the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 has 100% coverage for all three required parameters, each with descriptions. The description repeats these details in the 'Parameters to validate' section without adding new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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 'Update the name of an existing group within a sweepstakes' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_group and delete_group by focusing on updating an existing group's name.

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, then fetch_groups to get the group_token.' It also includes a 'Pre-calls required' section. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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