raisely_requestPower-user escape hatch: GET any Raisely API path not wrapped by a dedicated tool. READ-ONLY — only GET is allowed. Pass the FULL API path after the base, starting with a slash, INCLUDING any query string, e.g. "/subscriptions/{uuid}/donations" or "/donations?limit=50". Returns the parsed JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Full API path after the base, starting with "/", e.g. "/donations?limit=50". |
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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds context: only GET is allowed, full path with query string must be passed, and returns parsed JSON. This goes beyond the annotation and clarifies the expected input format and output type. Minor gap: no mention of error behavior or rate limits, but for a simple GET escape hatch this is sufficient.
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?
Two sentences, highly informative and front-loaded with 'Power-user escape hatch'. Every word contributes: path format, read-only constraint, examples, and return type. No fluff.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: what it does, when to use it, how to format the path, and what it returns. The presence of strong annotations and a clear input schema means the description doesn't need to repeat those, and it completes the picture effectively.
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 description coverage is 100%, but the tool description adds value by providing concrete examples ('/subscriptions/{uuid}/donations' and '/donations?limit=50') and emphasizing the need to include the query string and leading slash. This reinforces the schema's description and reduces ambiguity.
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 it is a 'GET any Raisely API path' tool, acting as an escape hatch for paths not covered by dedicated tools. It uses a specific verb (GET) and resource (Raisely API path), and distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD tools by being the generic fallback.
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?
Explicitly says 'not wrapped by a dedicated tool', providing a clear when-to-use condition. Also states 'READ-ONLY — only GET is allowed', which is a clear exclusion for write operations. This tells the agent when to choose this tool over the many dedicated siblings.
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.