How do I use standshare-mcp?

1. Click on "Deploy Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@standshare-mcp List all upcoming events with their dates" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

standshare-mcp

by GraditiPro

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

standshare-mcp

CodeQL Socket Badge npm version License: MIT MCP SDK

An MCP (Model Context Protocol) server for the StandShare API. Gives Claude and other MCP clients composable tools for managing fundraising events, families, workers, finances, notifications, and reports within a StandShare organization.

StandShare is a family fundraising platform where organizations manage concession stand events, assign workers, track attendance, and distribute earnings to family accounts.

Tools

Tool	Description
`events`	Search, view, create, and update fundraising events; add stands
`families`	Search, view (with balance), create families; add members
`users`	Search, view, create, and invite user accounts
`venues`	Search and view venue details
`finances`	Family balances, event revenue, transactions, settlement, credits, scholarships
`workers`	Event rosters, assign workers, update attendance, check availability, view history
`notifications`	List, send to individual users, and broadcast org-wide announcements
`reports`	Admin dashboard KPIs, financial summaries, family compliance status

Related MCP server: srgplus-mcp

Resources

URI	Description
`standshare://guide`	Domain guide covering the entity model, financial model, and migration playbook

Installation

Claude Desktop

Add the following to your claude_desktop_config.json:

macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json

Option A — API Token (recommended)

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "standshare": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@graditipro/standshare-mcp"],
      "env": {
        "STANDSHARE_API_URL": "https://api.standshare.com",
        "STANDSHARE_TENANT_SLUG": "your-org-slug",
        "STANDSHARE_API_TOKEN": "your-api-token"
      }
    }
  }
}

Option B — Email & Password

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "standshare": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@graditipro/standshare-mcp"],
      "env": {
        "STANDSHARE_API_URL": "https://api.standshare.com",
        "STANDSHARE_TENANT_SLUG": "your-org-slug",
        "STANDSHARE_EMAIL": "admin@yourorg.com",
        "STANDSHARE_PASSWORD": "your-password"
      }
    }
  }
}

After editing, restart Claude Desktop. Verify the server loaded via the hammer icon (🔨) in the toolbar.

Other MCP Clients

Run directly:

STANDSHARE_API_URL=https://api.standshare.com \
STANDSHARE_TENANT_SLUG=your-org-slug \
STANDSHARE_API_TOKEN=your-api-token \
npx @graditipro/standshare-mcp

Environment Variables

Variable	Required	Description
`STANDSHARE_API_URL`	Yes	Base URL of your StandShare API instance
`STANDSHARE_TENANT_SLUG`	Yes	Your organization's tenant slug
`STANDSHARE_API_TOKEN`	One of*	API token for token-based auth
`STANDSHARE_EMAIL`	One of*	Admin email for credential-based auth
`STANDSHARE_PASSWORD`	One of*	Admin password for credential-based auth

* Either STANDSHARE_API_TOKEN or both STANDSHARE_EMAIL + STANDSHARE_PASSWORD must be set.

Authentication

Two strategies are supported:

API Token — Set STANDSHARE_API_TOKEN. The token is sent as a Bearer header on every request. Preferred for production and automated use.

Email / Password — Set STANDSHARE_EMAIL and STANDSHARE_PASSWORD. The server logs in on first use, then uses refresh tokens to maintain the session automatically.

Local Development

git clone https://github.com/GraditiPro/standshare-mcp.git
cd standshare-mcp
npm install
npm run build

To run from a local build in Claude Desktop, replace "npx", ["-y", "standshare-mcp"] with:

{
  "command": "node",
  "args": ["/absolute/path/to/standshare-mcp/build/index.js"]
}

License

MIT

Available Tools

8 tools

eventsB

Manage fundraising events — search, view details, create, update, and add stands. Events are concession stand shifts at venues where families send workers to earn commissions.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	Event date ISO 8601 (for create)
`name`	No	Event name (for create)
`notes`	No	Event notes
`query`	No	Search by event name
`action`	Yes	Action to perform
`dateTo`	No	Filter events to this date (ISO 8601)
`status`	No	Filter by status
`eventId`	No	Event ID (required for get, update, add_stand)
`venueId`	No	Filter by venue ID
`dateFrom`	No	Filter events from this date (ISO 8601)
`maxWorkers`	No	Maximum workers for the event
`standNumber`	No	Stand number (for add_stand)
`signupOpenAt`	No	Signup open date ISO 8601
`perPersonRate`	No	Per-person rate in dollars
`signupCloseAt`	No	Signup close date ISO 8601
`waitlistEnabled`	No	Enable waitlist
`fundDistributionEnabled`	No	Enable fund distribution

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only explains the domain (fundraising events as concession shifts) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, side effects, rate limits, or typical response structures.

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?

Two sentences cover the essential purpose and domain context with no redundant wording. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having 17 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain how actions like add_stand work, what prerequisites exist, or what the return values look like. More detail is needed for a tool of this complexity.

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 parameters are already documented. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying parameter relationships or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool manages events with specific verbs: search, view, create, update, add stands. It also defines what an event is (concession stand shifts), providing context that distinguishes it from sibling tools like venues or families.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., families, venues). The description implies it is for event management but does not specify contexts where other tools are more appropriate or provide exclusions.

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

familiesB

Manage family units — search, view details with balance, create, and add members. Families are the core unit in StandShare — they send workers to events and earn commissions to their family account.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	No	Member role (lead, worker)
`query`	No	Search by family name
`action`	Yes	Action to perform
`status`	No	Filter by status
`userId`	No	User ID to add as member
`program`	No	Filter by program (e.g., Varsity, JV)
`familyId`	No	Family ID (required for get, add_member)
`familyName`	No	Family name (for create)
`primaryContactUserId`	No	Primary contact user ID (for create)

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions actions like create and add_member which are mutations, but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or any behavioral traits beyond the generic 'manage'. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple actions.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences. The first sentence lists key actions, the second provides context. However, it could be more structured to better organize actions and constraints.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides some domain context but lacks detail on action-specific behavior (e.g., what search returns, required fields for each action). It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds domain context (families send workers, earn commissions) but does not enrich the meaning of parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Manage' and clearly identifies the resource 'family units'. It lists distinct actions: search, view details, create, and add members. The context about StandShare families distinguishes it from sibling tools like events, finances, etc.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for family management but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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

financesC

Financial operations — view family balances, event revenue, transactions, run settlement, and record historical data. Families earn commissions from events which are distributed to their accounts after settlement.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	Date for historical records (ISO 8601)
`type`	No	Transaction type filter (event_commission, fund_deduction, scholarship_payment)
`limit`	No	Number of transactions to return
`action`	Yes	Action to perform
`amount`	No	Dollar amount (for credit_account, record_scholarship)
`dateTo`	No	End date (ISO 8601)
`stands`	No	Stand data array (for record_settlement)
`status`	No	Status (for record_scholarship: pending, approved, rejected)
`eventId`	No	Event ID
`venueId`	No	Venue ID for revenue filtering
`dateFrom`	No	Start date (ISO 8601)
`familyId`	No	Family ID
`templateId`	No	Template ID (for get_settlement_template)
`description`	No	Description for ledger entry
`settlementTemplateId`	No	Settlement template ID

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It hints at read and write operations (view, run settlement, record) but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a tool with many actions, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is concise, with two sentences that list key capabilities and explain the business context. It could be more structured by grouping actions, but it is efficient and to the point.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, many actions) and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values or behavior for different actions, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand usage effectively.

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% with descriptions for each parameter, so baseline is 3. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema; it only lists high-level actions without linking parameters to those actions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool handles financial operations and lists specific actions like viewing balances, revenue, transactions, and running settlement. It distinguishes from sibling tools (events, families, etc.) by focusing on finances. However, it could be more precise about the scope.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain when to use specific actions within the tool. It lists actions but lacks context for selection.

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

notificationsB

Send and view notifications — send messages to individual users, list notifications, and broadcast announcements to the organization.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	Notification/announcement title
`action`	Yes	Action to perform
`userId`	No	User ID (required for send)
`message`	No	Notification/announcement body
`unreadOnly`	No	Only show unread notifications

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Send and view notifications' without mentioning side effects, permissions, rate limits, or which actions are destructive. This is insufficient for a multi-action tool.

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?

The description is concise (single sentence) and front-loaded, but could be slightly more structured. It earns a 4 as it is efficient with no unnecessary words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (three actions, five parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values, how the 'action' parameter selects behavior, or what to expect when listing vs sending vs announcing.

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 has 100% description coverage, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only generalizing the actions without detailing parameter usage or constraints.

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's purpose: 'Send and view notifications' and lists three specific actions (send, list, announce), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'events' or 'users' which have different domains.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description outlines what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools are unrelated, so the need for usage guidance is moderate.

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

reportsA

View organizational reports — admin dashboard with KPIs, financial summaries for date ranges, and compliance status showing which families are missing required documents.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	Action to perform
`dateTo`	No	End date for financial_summary (ISO 8601)
`dateFrom`	No	Start date for financial_summary (ISO 8601)
`familyId`	No	Family ID for compliance_status

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The verb 'View' implies read-only behavior, and no annotations contradict this. However, no explicit disclosure of side effects or permissions is given, though none seem needed.

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?

A single concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and key capabilities. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description reasonably covers the tool's inputs and outputs. It could mention the required action parameter or error conditions, but the schema fills the gap.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions. The description enriches meaning by providing business context (KPIs, financial summaries, compliance status) for the action enum values, going beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 is for viewing organizational reports and lists three specific types (dashboard, financial summaries, compliance status), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage entities.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Context signals and sibling names imply it's for reporting, but no direct instruction is provided.

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

usersB

Manage user accounts — search, view details with roles and family associations, create, and invite. Users are individuals who log into StandShare and may be associated with one or more families.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	No	Filter by role name
`email`	No	Email address (required for create, invite)
`phone`	No	Phone number
`query`	No	Search by name or email
`action`	Yes	Action to perform
`status`	No	Filter by status
`userId`	No	User ID (required for get)
`lastName`	No	Last name
`firstName`	No	First name

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists actions including create and invite (mutating) but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or irreversible actions. Minimal behavioral context beyond the action names.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the key verb 'Manage' and a list of actions, then defines 'Users'. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite good schema coverage, the description is brief for a tool with 9 parameters and 4 actions. It doesn't explain what 'view details' returns, how roles/family associations work, or that certain actions require specific parameters. The overall behavior remains somewhat opaque, especially 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 provides descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema offers.

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 explicitly states the tool manages user accounts and lists the specific actions (search, view details, create, invite) plus defines what a user is, making the purpose clear and distinct from sibling tools like events or families.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for user-related actions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The domain distinction from siblings is clear, but no usage context or exclusions are given.

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

venuesB

Look up venues — search by name/location and view details. Venues are physical locations (stadiums, arenas) where fundraising events take place.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	No	Filter by city
`query`	No	Search by venue name
`state`	No	Filter by state
`action`	Yes	Action to perform
`venueId`	No	Venue ID (required for get)

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided. The description uses 'look up' and 'view', strongly implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state that no modifications occur or disclose any other side effects.

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?

Two sentences convey the purpose and definition of venues with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core action. Highly concise.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description lacks detail on return format, pagination, or how search versus get actions differ. For a 5-parameter tool with an enum, more guidance is needed for effective use.

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 description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds context by mapping 'name/location' to query/city/state, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Look up venues' with search and view details, defining venues as physical locations. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are in different domains.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for searching and viewing venue details but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though siblings are distinct.

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

workersA

Manage worker assignments — view event rosters, assign workers to events/stands, update attendance, check availability, and view attendance history. Workers are family members who work concession stands at events.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	Action to perform
`dateTo`	No	End date for history (ISO 8601)
`userId`	No	User ID
`eventId`	No	Event ID (required for event_roster, assign, update_assignment, availability)
`standId`	No	Stand ID to assign worker to
`dateFrom`	No	Start date for history (ISO 8601)
`familyId`	No	Family ID (required for assign)
`workerName`	No	Worker name (for assign)
`assignmentId`	No	Assignment ID (required for update_assignment)
`rankByHistory`	No	Rank available workers by attendance history
`attendanceStatus`	No	Attendance status
`registrationStatus`	No	Registration status

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as permissions, destructive actions, or side effects. It only lists action types without context.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and provide essential context without excess.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With 12 parameters and no output schema, the description outlines main actions but does not clarify parameter relationships or action-specific requirements, leaving gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 it manages worker assignments and lists specific actions (event rosters, assign, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like events or families.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for worker tasks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not advice.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

8 tool updatesv1.0.0Jul 13, 2026
- First observedevents
- First observedfamilies
- First observedfinances
- First observednotifications
- First observedreports
- First observedusers
- First observedvenues
- First observedworkers

Deploy Server

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

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Scored 2026-07-13 12:15 across 8 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct domain (events, families, finances, etc.) with clear boundaries. No overlapping purposes; agents can easily differentiate.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names are single, plural nouns (e.g., events, families, users) following a consistent pattern. No mixed naming conventions.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools appropriately cover the core entities and operations of the StandShare system. Not too many or too few for the domain size.

Completeness4/5

Covers most key operations (CRUD on events, families, users; finances, reports, notifications). Minor gaps: no delete operations mentioned, venues only support search/view.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

modern-treasury A
io.usefulapi
MCP server for Modern Treasury — payment orders, transactions, counterparties and ledgers.
Finance Payments & Billing
172
classquill-mcp
io.github.EquateItAu
Read-only MCP server for ClassQuill, a tutoring-business-management platform.
Education & Learning Tools CRM
2
sendbird A
io.usefulapi
MCP server for Sendbird — chat users, channels, members, and messages from your AI client.
Communication Customer Support
142
Planning Center MCP ServerOAuth
com.planningcenter
The official Planning Center MCP server for interacting with your ministry's data.
App Automation Project Management
2

Related MCP Servers

USA Spending MCP Serverofficial
Government Data Open Data
GSA-TTS
F
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
An MCP server for interacting with the USAspending.gov API, supporting local use with Claude Desktop and cloud deployment with login.gov authentication.
Updated 3 months ago (2026-06-04 17:26 UTC)
3
10
-
srgplus-mcpofficial
Content Management Systems Workplace & Productivity
srgplus
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
MCP server for SRG+ — lets Claude (and any MCP-aware agent) manage hubs, channels, content, assets, users, and workspaces through the SRG+ API.
Updated 3 months ago (2026-06-14 07:19 UTC)
103
MIT
mcp-api-toolkit
API Testing Developer Tools Documentation Access
anyrxo
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
Comprehensive API development and testing MCP server for Claude Code. Integrates OpenAPI parsing, testing, SDK generation, and documentation generation into Claude workflows.
Updated 10 months ago (2025-11-15 10:28 UTC)
8
1
MIT
Beeswax Shares MCP Server
Finance
steamau
F
license
A
quality
B
maintenance
A standalone MCP server for Beeswax Shares, an SMSF portfolio app. It enables Claude to read portfolio data, recall transactions, upload statements, and propose ledger records for human review.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-02 08:10 UTC)
39
-

standshare-mcp

Tools

Resources

Installation

Claude Desktop

Option A — API Token (recommended)

Option B — Email & Password

Other MCP Clients

Environment Variables

Authentication

Local Development

License

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

USA Spending MCP Serverofficial

srgplus-mcpofficial