Skip to main content
Glama

SoapBox Faith

by io.github.alansafahi

give_to_church

Idempotent

Make a one-time donation to a church ON BEHALF OF A USER, within the spending caps they pre-authorized. Requires the user's consent_token with the 'giving:write' scope (bound to this agent) and a card they saved in the SoapBox app. The gift goes straight to the church (passthrough — SoapBox takes no cut). Rejected if the amount exceeds the per-gift or monthly cap. Pass a stable idempotency_key to avoid double-charging on retries. Amounts are in the smallest currency unit (cents).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoOptional short note to the church accompanying the gift.
currencyNoOptional ISO 4217 currency code (lowercase). Defaults to the church's own currency.
amount_centsYesGift amount in the smallest currency unit (cents). Must be within the user's per-gift and monthly caps or the call is rejected.
community_idYesThe recipient church's SoapBox community id (e.g. the soapbox_community_id from find_churches).
consent_tokenYesOpaque SoapBox consent token with the 'giving:write' scope, bound to your agent key and carrying the user's pre-authorized per-gift and monthly caps. Generated by the user in the SoapBox app.
idempotency_keyNoA stable, caller-generated key so retries don't double-charge. Reuse the same key when retrying the same intended gift.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the consent token scope requirement, the passthrough nature with no fee, the cap enforcement, and the need for an idempotency key. These are critical behaviors not specified in the annotations, adding significant transparency.

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?

The description is a single, dense paragraph with no fluff. It leads with the primary action, then prerequisites, constraints, and idempotency guidance. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers prerequisites, rejection conditions, and idempotency behavior, but since there is no output schema, it fails to mention what a successful response contains (e.g., a confirmation ID). This is a notable gap for a mutation tool where the agent needs to confirm success.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for every parameter, including consent_token, amount_cents, and idempotency_key. The tool description adds little beyond restating that amounts are in cents and idempotency key usage, which are already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the tool's purpose: "Make a one-time donation to a church ON BEHALF OF A USER", which is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes this from sibling payment tools by emphasizing the user's pre-authorized caps and consent token.

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 prerequisites and constraints: it requires a user's consent_token with 'giving:write' scope and a saved card, and it rejects amounts over caps. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like pay_with_x402, but the context makes it clear this is the right tool for church donations under user authorization.

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

All SoapBox Faith 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct action and resource: ask_ora is for Q&A, get_verse for exact verse lookup, verify_scripture for quote checking, lookup_strongs for lexicon entries, and so on. Any potential overlap (e.g., ask_ora vs get_verse) is explicitly addressed in the descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names consistently use a verb_noun or verb_prep_noun pattern (e.g., get_verse, search_sermons, submit_prayer_request, pay_with_x402). No mixing of casing or verb styles is present.

Tool Count3/5

At 19 tools, the set feels heavy. While each tool has a distinct purpose, the breadth spans scripture, sermons, prayers, giving, churches, user context, and audio synthesis. Some functions could be consolidated (e.g., purchase_sermon and purchase_bundle into a single purchase action) or split into separate services.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are well-covered: discovery, purchase, prayer submission/status, giving, church lookup, and Bible study. However, there are minor gaps such as no way to update or delete prayer requests, no list of previously purchased items, and no general user profile beyond faith context. These are workable but prevent full lifecycle management.

Resources