get_profileFetch a single fundraising profile by path (a URL slug OR the uuid — a string either way). Raisely API: GET /profiles/{path}. Returns { data:{...} }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | The profile path (URL slug) or uuid. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the actual API endpoint 'GET /profiles/{path}' and response envelope '{ data:{...} }'. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the safety hint, though it doesn't detail error handling or edge cases. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: one sentence stating the purpose and another giving the API reference. There is no redundant fluff; every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with one well-documented parameter, the description is complete. It provides the return shape, which is especially helpful given the absence of an output schema. The tool's simplicity and clear annotation coverage make this fully sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the parameter as 'The profile path (URL slug) or uuid.' The description repeats this information without adding new semantics, so it adds no value beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Fetch a single fundraising profile by path.' It specifies the resource (fundraising profile), the method (GET by path), and how to identify it (URL slug or uuid). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_profiles (listing) and get_user (user profiles).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly conveys when to use this tool: when you need a single profile by path. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear. Given the sibling context, it's evident that list_profiles is for multiple profiles, so the usage context is established.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool is clearly scoped to a specific resource and action. The get_/list_/create_/update_ prefixes distinguish reads from mutations, and the convenience listers are explicitly labeled, so there is no real overlap or confusion.
Tool names largely follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, update_). The only outlier is raisely_request, which is a generic escape hatch but breaks the pattern slightly.
With 23 tools, the server is on the heavy side. While each tool maps to a distinct API endpoint, several convenience wrappers (list_campaign_donations, list_user_donations) add redundancy without significantly expanding functionality.
The tool surface is heavily read-oriented. Many core resources like campaigns, subscriptions, posts, and orders lack create/update/delete operations, and the read-only raisely_request cannot fill these gaps, leaving agents unable to perform common management tasks.