Skip to main content
Glama

raisely

by io.usefulapi

Upsert a user

upsert_user
Destructive

MUTATES Raisely data: creates OR updates a supporter/donor, matched by email (safer than a plain create — no duplicates). Raisely API: POST /users/upsert with the body wrapped as { data: {...} }. Typed: email (the match key), firstName, lastName; everything else (phoneNumber, address, public, private, ...) via fields. Returns the upserted user.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesThe user's email address — the match key for upsert. Required.
fieldsNoAdditional documented Raisely fields to send in the JSON write body's `data` object — merged OVER the typed fields above.
lastNameNoUser last name.
firstNameNoUser first name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses mutational behavior ('MUTATES', 'creates OR updates'), explains the email matching logic, and provides API endpoint and body wrapping details. This goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by adding technical context, though it omits some edge-case behaviors like field overwrite semantics.

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 compact and front-loaded with 'MUTATES Raisely data', then delivers purpose, API usage, parameters, and return value in two dense sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, only a destructiveHint annotation, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, API details, and return value. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, and the lack of return format details is acceptable without an output schema.

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 input schema already describes all 4 parameters including the email match key and `fields` merge behavior. The description repeats the 'everything else via fields' guidance without adding new parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 creates OR updates a supporter/donor matched by email, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from a plain create by noting 'no duplicates', which separates it from sibling tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: 'safer than a plain create — no duplicates'. It also explains how to handle additional fields via `fields`. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All raisely 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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.

Resources