Little Green Light MCP Server

record_gift

Record a new donation for a constituent in Little Green Light, specifying amount, date, and optional details like fund or campaign.

Instructions

Record a new gift nested under a specific constituent

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "constituent_id": "<constituent_id>",
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "gift_date": "<gift_date>"
    },
    "name": "record_gift"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`amount`	Yes	Gift amount in USD
`fund_name`	No
`gift_date`	Yes	YYYY-MM-DD
`event_name`	No
`appeal_name`	No
`payment_type`	No	e.g. Cash, Check, Credit Card
`campaign_name`	No
`constituent_id`	Yes	Target constituent

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.7.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'Record' is consistent but adds no extra behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects, duplicate handling, or any constraints beyond the schema. Minimal value added over annotations.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded. No redundant or misleading content. Slightly too brief but still effective.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits how the gift relates to the constituent, optional parameters purpose, and any typical usage examples. Agent would need additional context to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 9 parameters with only 44% coverage by descriptions. The tool description does not mention any parameters, missing the opportunity to clarify parameters like 'fund_name', 'appeal_name', etc. Fails to compensate for schema gaps.

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 action ('Record') and resource ('a new gift') with a specific constraint ('nested under a specific constituent'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_gift', 'update_gift', 'delete_gift', which are different operations. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Description implies the tool is used for creating gifts linked to a constituent, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives. Since no other gift creation tool exists among siblings, the context is implied but lacking explicit guidance on prerequisites or when not to use.

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

Deploy Server