Skip to main content
Glama

MyLastWill

by org.mylastwill
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Add a charitable gift to an existing will

add_charity_to_existing_will
Read-onlyIdempotent

Draft a codicil (a short signed amendment) that adds a charitable gift to a will the person already has, plus gift wording to give their attorney. Use when someone already has a will and wants to leave a percentage or dollar amount to causes or charities. Not legal advice; for Louisiana and North Carolina residents only the gift wording is returned.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fundNoOnly for giving_method named_fund: a foundation-style named fund that keeps giving.
causesYesCauses that receive the charitable gift, with each one's share. Use list_causes for the built-in causes, or describe your own.
personYesThe person making the plan.
giving_methodNoresearch_guided: each cause's share goes to Systemic Altruism Foundation's (EIN 87-2067921) Cause Fund for that cause, which grants it to effective charities working on it, guided by MyLastWill.org research (default). named_charities: give to the specific charities listed under each cause. named_fund: create a named legacy fund (see fund).
estate_estimateNoRough value in USD of property passing under the will (for dollar estimates only).
has_living_trustNoTrue if most assets are in a living trust (a codicil only reaches property passing under the will).
existing_will_dateNoDate the existing will was signed, YYYY-MM-DD (optional).
charitable_gift_amountNoA fixed dollar amount to give instead of a percentage.
charitable_share_percentNoPercentage of the residuary estate to give. Use this or charitable_gift_amount.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / giving_method / description
      Previous value: -"research_guided: the executor gives each cause's share to effective charities working on it, guided by MyLastWill.org research (default). named_charities: give to the specific charities listed under each cause. named_fund: create a named legacy fund (see fund)."New value: +"research_guided: each cause's share goes to Systemic Altruism Foundation's (EIN 87-2067921) Cause Fund for that cause, which grants it to effective charities working on it, guided by MyLastWill.org research (default). named_charities: give to the specific charities listed under each cause. named_fund: create a named legacy fund (see fund)."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds two genuinely non-obvious facts: this is not legal advice, and for Louisiana and North Carolina residents only the gift wording is returned. It could go further on what the codicil output contains or requires (e.g. signing/witness formalities), but the state carve-out is real behavioral value.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it produces, when to use it, and the legal/state caveat. The core artifact is front-loaded before the usage condition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a nine-parameter nested tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back (codicil plus gift wording) and the one state-level output variance. Minor gap: nothing about how the codicil must be executed or what happens when has_living_trust is true, though the schema hints at it.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in detail. The description only echoes 'a percentage or dollar amount,' adding nothing beyond the schema's charitable_share_percent / charitable_gift_amount pairing. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 artifact ('Draft a codicil... that adds a charitable gift to a will the person already has') plus a secondary output ('gift wording to give their attorney'). The phrase 'a will the person already has' implicitly separates it from create_will without ambiguity.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: 'Use when someone already has a will and wants to leave a percentage or dollar amount to causes or charities.' It does not explicitly name create_will or get_bequest_language as the alternative when there is no existing will, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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

All MyLastWill toolsInspect
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