Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

MyLastWill

by org.mylastwill
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Look up a charity's legal name and tax ID

lookup_charity
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find a U.S. charity's exact legal name, EIN (federal tax ID), city and state, and 501(c)(3) status from IRS filings (via ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer), with ready-to-use bequest and beneficiary-form wording. Helpful before a specific charity is named in a will or on a beneficiary form, because many charities have similar names. Search by name (optionally with a state), then look up the chosen organization by EIN. Churches and very small charities may not appear because they don't file Form 990.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "lookup_charity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
einNoFederal tax ID (EIN), e.g. 13-1788491. Returns that organization's details and wording.
queryNoCharity name to search for, e.g. "St. Jude Children's Research Hospital".
stateNoOptional two-letter state code to narrow a name search.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description is not obligated to cover safety. It still adds real value: data provenance (IRS/ProPublica), coverage limitations for non-filers, and the enumerated fields plus ready-to-use bequest wording it returns. It stops short of saying what happens on zero or multiple matches, which keeps it off a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its outputs, then the use case, then the search procedure and caveat. Every sentence carries information; the only minor cost is a slightly dense middle sentence combining purpose with bequest wording.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly enumerates the returned fields and the bequest/beneficiary wording. Combined with the coverage caveat and the name→EIN workflow, an agent can call this correctly; the only gap is guidance on ambiguous or empty results.

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. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between parameters — 'query' and optional 'state' are for the search stage, 'ein' is for resolving the chosen organization — which the schema lists but does not connect into a workflow.

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 ('Find a U.S. charity's exact legal name, EIN, city/state, and 501(c)(3) status') and names the data source (IRS filings via ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer). It is clearly distinct from siblings like add_charity_to_existing_will and get_bequest_language, which act on wills rather than resolving identity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use it ('before a specific charity is named in a will or on a beneficiary form, because many charities have similar names') and even prescribes the two-step procedure: search by name (optionally with state), then look up by EIN. It also flags the exclusion case — churches and very small charities that don't file Form 990 may be absent.

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