Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Skool MCP Server and API by Cotlet

by dev.cotlet
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Add membership question

add_membership_question
Destructive

Add a question people answer when they ask to join the group. Admins only. Adds a membership question, as Settings, Membership questions does; Skool asks up to 3 and only one of type email. Answers show next to each request in list_membership_requests. Returns all questions. Runs without asking first: nobody is notified.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "group": "<group>",
      "question": "<question>"
    },
    "name": "add_membership_question"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNotext (default), email or options (multiple choice, one answer).
groupYesGroup URL name, e.g. 'yourgroup' for skool.com/yourgroup.
optionsNoUp to 4 answers when type is options.
questionYesThe question, up to 150 characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses the admin-only requirement, the platform caps (3 questions, one email type), that answers surface in list_membership_requests, that it runs without confirmation, and that nobody is notified. The destructiveHint=true annotation is not contradicted, and the subscription/notification behavior is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then prerequisites, limits, and return behavior in a tight sequence. Slightly dense and the "Adds a membership question, as Settings, Membership questions does" clause partly restates the opening, but there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully says "Returns all questions," and it covers auth, limits, and side effects. It stops short of saying what happens on the 4th question or a second email question (error vs. silent ignore), which matters for a capped mutation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents group, question, type, and options. The description only indirectly adds meaning by noting "only one of type email"; it says nothing about the options array or type defaults beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is right.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ("Add a question people answer when they ask to join the group") and it anchors the concept to the UI equivalent (Settings > Membership questions), which disambiguates it from update_membership_question and delete_membership_question in the sibling list.

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?

"Admins only" gives the authorization prerequisite and "Skool asks up to 3 and only one of type email" gives the hard limits that determine whether a call will succeed. It doesn't explicitly route to update_membership_question when a question already exists, which is the one remaining gap.

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

All Skool MCP Server and API by Cotlet toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources