Skip to main content
Glama

Create Secret Santa

create_secret_santa

Use this when the user wants to draw names for a Secret Santa or holiday gift exchange and give each person a private link. Takes 3 to 60 names, optional couples or households who must not draw each other, one-way exclusions (for example last year's match), a budget, an exchange date and a note. Publishes a hosted page: each private link shows one person whom they buy for, the budget, the date and the match's wishlist, and each person can add their own wishlist. Returns one private link per person and an organizer link; the draw itself is not returned. Explains why when no draw is possible. Does not send emails or texts. Do not use for White Elephant games or for picking one winner.

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": {
      "participants": "<participants>"
    },
    "name": "create_secret_santa"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoShort note from the organizer shown on every private page, e.g. Wrap it and bring it to the party. No links.
budgetNoSpending limit as text, e.g. $25 or 20-30 EUR.
couplesNoGroups whose members must not draw each other (couples, households), e.g. [["Ana","Bo"]].
time_zoneNoIANA time zone for showing when links were opened, e.g. America/Chicago. Default America/New_York.
event_nameNoName shown on every page, e.g. Office Secret Santa 2026.
exclusionsNoOne-way rules, e.g. [{"giver":"Cy","cannot_draw":"Dee"}] for last year's match.
participantsYesEveryone taking part, 3 to 60 first names or nicknames, each unique, e.g. ["Ana","Bo","Cy","Dee"].
exchange_dateNoDay of the gift exchange as YYYY-MM-DD, e.g. 2026-12-18.
no_two_person_loopsNotrue = no two people draw each other (A gives to B and B gives to A). Default false.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventYes
rulesYes
budgetYes
closedYes
peopleYes
warningsYes
manageUrlYes
publicUrlYes
can_redrawYes
expires_onYes
opened_countYes
exchange_dateYes
wishlist_countYes
participant_countYes
people_count_shownNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: it publishes a hosted page, returns one private link per person plus an organizer link, explains failure when no draw is possible, and clarifies no emails or texts are sent. Those are exactly the effects an agent needs to anticipate.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger and scope, then a tight sentence each for inputs, published output, return values, failure mode, and exclusions. No sentence is redundant, and the negative constraints are placed where they cannot be missed.

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?

For a 9-parameter creation tool with an output schema, the description covers trigger, inputs, side effects, return payload, and failure behavior, so nothing an agent needs before calling is missing. Return-value details are already handled by the output schema, so their absence from the description is not a gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: the 3-to-60 participant bound, that couples/households are mutual non-draw groups, that exclusions are one-way (last year's match), and that budget/date/note surface on the hosted pages. It says nothing about time_zone, event_name, or no_two_person_loops, leaving those to the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('draw names for a Secret Santa or holiday gift exchange and give each person a private link') and adds the key output distinction that the draw itself is not returned. It also explicitly separates itself from non-matching tasks (White Elephant, single-winner draws), so an agent can route correctly.

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?

Opens with a clear trigger ('Use this when the user wants to draw names...') and names two explicit when-not cases. It stops short of routing to the sibling tools redraw_secret_santa or show_secret_santa_status, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources