Zovo Raffle Tickets

Generate raffle tickets

generate_raffle_tickets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user wants printable raffle tickets, a raffle ticket template, or numbered tickets with stubs for a fundraiser. Returns a print-ready PDF with 10 or 8 numbered tickets per US Letter or A4 sheet, each with a stub carrying the same number, dashed cut lines, and the event name, date, prizes, price and contact line; numbers run in order across sheets with no gaps or repeats. Up to 2,000 tickets per call. Does not sell tickets, collect payments or check whether a raffle is legal where the user lives.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	Draw date and time as you want it printed, e.g. May 3, 2027 at 7 pm or 2027-05-03.
`color`	No	Accent colour as a name or hex, e.g. blue, green or #1D5FC4. Default red.
`count`	No	How many tickets, 1 to 2,000. Default 100. Example: 200.
`paper`	No	letter (US Letter, default) or a4.
`price`	No	Ticket price as printed, e.g. 5 (printed $5), "$5 or 5 for $20", or "€2".
`digits`	No	Minimum digits per number with leading zeros, e.g. 4 gives 0001. Default 4.
`prefix`	No	Text before each number, e.g. A- gives A-0001. Default none.
`prizes`	No	Prize lines, up to 3 printed, e.g. ["Grand prize: 55-inch TV", "2nd: $100 gift card"] or one line.
`contact`	No	Organizer contact line, e.g. PTA - pta@example.org - (555) 010-2000.
`location`	No	Where the draw happens, e.g. Lincoln High School gym.
`per_page`	No	Tickets per sheet: 10 (2 x 5, each 3.75 x 2 in) or 8 (2 x 4, each 3.75 x 2.5 in). Default 10.
`end_number`	No	Last ticket number instead of count, e.g. 500 for tickets 1 to 500.
`event_name`	No	Event or fundraiser name printed on each ticket, e.g. Spring Gala Raffle. Default: Raffle.
`fine_print`	No	Short line such as Need not be present to win.
`stub_fields`	No	Write-in lines on the stub, up to 3. Default Name and Phone. Example: Name, Phone, Email.
`start_number`	No	First ticket number. Default 1. Example: 1001.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`paper`	Yes
`price`	Yes
`prizes`	Yes
`sheets`	Yes
`per_page`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`downloads`	Yes
`event_name`	Yes
`assumptions`	Yes
`last_number`	Yes
`stub_fields`	Yes
`ticket_size`	Yes
`first_number`	Yes
`ticket_count`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the return artifact (print-ready PDF), layout behavior (10 or 8 tickets per US Letter or A4 sheet), numbering guarantees (sequential with no gaps or repeats), and a hard limit of 2,000 tickets per call. It also clarifies important exclusions around sales, payments, and legal compliance.

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 front-loaded with the usage condition, then moves to output details, limits, and exclusions in a compact three-sentence structure. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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?

With 16 optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context about the generated artifact, numbering behavior, sheet layout, capacity limit, and scope exclusions. Because an output schema exists, it need not explain return values in greater detail.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter thoroughly. The description reinforces the overall constraint of up to 2,000 tickets and describes sheet layout, but adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema.

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: generating printable raffle tickets, and describes the exact deliverable (a print-ready PDF with numbered tickets and stubs). It is easy to distinguish from the sibling draw_raffle_winners because this tool produces ticket sheets, not draw results.

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 opening sentence gives a clear when-to-use condition tied to user intent, and the final sentence states what the tool does not do (sell tickets, collect payments, check legality). It does not explicitly name draw_raffle_winners as the alternative, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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

All Zovo Raffle Tickets 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?