crewpay

Dry-run: create a campaign job (test/devnet only)

crew_job_create_dry_run

Read-onlyIdempotent

Plan a paid campaign job (multichain, per-proof payouts). Includes flop-devnet + FLOP. Test/devnet only; no funds moved. Community flop-htlc adapter, no partnership.

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": {
      "chainId": "<chainId>",
      "asset": "<asset>",
      "budget": "<budget>",
      "perProofAmount": "<perProofAmount>",
      "maxProofs": "<maxProofs>"
    },
    "name": "crew_job_create_dry_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	No
`asset`	Yes	Payout asset. Use FLOP on flop-devnet.
`budget`	Yes	Total budget (FLOP display units on flop-devnet; 1 FLOP = 10^18 Planck)
`chainId`	Yes	Target chain. Live flop-htlc escrow is flop-devnet only.
`maxProofs`	Yes
`perKOLCap`	No	Max proofs per KOL
`requiredLink`	No
`deadlineHours`	No	Deadline in hours (UTC)
`perProofAmount`	Yes	Per verified proof amount
`requiredTicker`	No
`minPostAgeHours`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context, and it does: no funds moved, devnet/test scope, and that live flop-htlc escrow is limited to flop-devnet. The 'community flop-htlc adapter, no partnership' fragment is opaque but does not mislead.

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?

It is short and front-loads the core action, which is good. The remainder is telegraphic fragments ('Includes flop-devnet + FLOP', 'Community flop-htlc adapter, no partnership') whose meaning is unclear and which read like internal shorthand rather than agent-facing guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter planning tool with no output schema, the description says nothing about what a successful dry run returns (a plan object, a validation error, a preview) or which optional parameters materially change the plan. The devnet-only scope is covered, but the return-shape gap is significant.

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 55% across 11 parameters, so the description should carry more weight than it does. 'Multichain, per-proof payouts' loosely maps to chainId and the perProofAmount/maxProofs pair, but it adds no units, formats, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Plan a paid campaign job (multichain, per-proof payouts)', and the title reinforces the dry-run framing so the agent can tell it apart from crew_job_create. It stops short of naming the non-dry-run sibling explicitly, which is the only reason it is not a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Test/devnet only; no funds moved' gives a clear applicability constraint, which is more than many definitions offer. However, there is no explicit routing guidance such as 'use this before crew_job_create to validate parameters', so the agent must infer the dry-run-first workflow from the title and sibling names.

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

All crewpay tools Inspect

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

Need Help?