Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Little Green Light MCP Server

Little Green Light MCP Server

by WillHeadlee
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

list_gifts

Read-only

List gifts by constituent or across account with date range filtering.

Instructions

List gifts, either for a specific constituent (nested) or across the account (search). Supports date-range filtering via start_date/end_date (YYYY-MM-DD).

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": "list_gifts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryNoSearch term across all gifts (if not filtering by constituent)
end_dateNoLatest gift_date to include, YYYY-MM-DD (inclusive)
start_dateNoEarliest gift_date to include, YYYY-MM-DD (inclusive)
constituent_idNoFilter by constituent (calls nested API)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the dual-mode behavior and filtering capability but omits details on pagination, ordering, or return format, which would further enrich transparency.

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, no fluff. Purpose is front-loaded, filtering details follow. Every word earns its place.

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?

Lacks description of return value (list of gifts, fields included). No mention of pagination or the limit parameter. For a list tool with no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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 80% of parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and the distinct roles of constituent_id (nested) vs query (search), going 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 the tool lists gifts, with two distinct modes (by constituent or across account). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_gift (single gift) and record_gift (create).

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 explains the two usage modes and date-range filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for single gift retrieval) or suggest alternatives like get_gift.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools