Skip to main content
Glama

Shared Forest

by io.github.ArneFfm
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Start a tree sponsorship

start_sponsorship
Idempotent

Needs OAuth scope sponsor:write (a Shared Forest account). Creates an unpaid order for the signed-in user and holds the spots. It charges nothing. The total must fit the spending limit the user set when connecting. The order expires after 30 minutes unless the user confirms. Returns confirm_url: give it to your user. The user logs in, accepts the terms and pays on that page. Ask the user before you call it and confirm name and total.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
linkNoOptional https link. It goes live after manual review.
emailNoOptional email for the confirmation and the invoice. Default: the email of the signed-in account.
spotsNoOptional positions from find_spots, one per tree. Omit and the server picks free spots.
quantityYesNumber of trees, 1-100. Larger orders get a lower unit price.
design_idsYesOne design_id for all trees, or one per tree.
display_nameYesName shown on the trees, 1-32 characters, labelled Sponsored.
idempotency_keyYesRetry key, for example a UUID. A retry with the same key returns the same order.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / email / description
      Previous value: -"The user's email for the confirmation and the invoice."New value: +"Optional email for the confirmation and the invoice. Default: the email of the signed-in account."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "quantity",
-  "design_ids",
-  "display_name",
-  "email",
-  "idempotency_key"
-]New value: +[
+  "quantity",
+  "design_ids",
+  "display_name",
+  "idempotency_key"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses OAuth requirements, that it creates an unpaid order, holds spots, charges nothing, respects a spending limit, expires after 30 minutes, returns confirm_url, and requires the user to log in and pay. This is rich behavioral context that significantly helps the agent predict side effects and user interaction, with no contradiction to annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Every sentence in the description earns its place: auth prerequisites, core action, no charge, spending limit, expiration, return URL, user flow, and a final instruction to confirm with the user. It is front-loaded with the most critical operational facts and contains no filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (OAuth scope, spending limits, order expiry, payment redirect) and the lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns (confirm_url), and how to complete the flow with the user. It is complete for correct invocation and handoff.

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% with detailed per-parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to re-explain parameters. It adds only indirect context like the spending limit constraint and the need to confirm total, but no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Creates an unpaid order for the signed-in user and holds the spots.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like plant_tree or get_price_quote by emphasizing the unpaid-hold-and-confirm flow, and the title 'Start a tree sponsorship' reinforces the unique purpose.

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 clear context: it requires OAuth scope sponsor:write, must fit the spending limit, and instructs the agent to ask the user before calling and confirm name and total. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All Shared Forest 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