Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
guardian-contributions-mcp

guardian-contributions-mcp

by cstillick
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_continuing

Retrieve deduplicated continuing contribution totals, split into raised and loans, for an organization. Optionally filter by date range or year.

Instructions

Deduped continuing-window total (Raised vs Loans split), counting each receipt once across however many continuing reports were filed (Appendix C / Rule 2). Defaults to the cycle's computed continuing window.

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": {
      "org_id": "<org_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_continuing"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
org_idYes
date_fromNo
date_toNo
yearNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dedup logic and default window, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or output format. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more structured with separate parameter explanations.

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's specificity, the description covers core behavior but omits output format, error conditions, and permissions. No output schema or annotations exist, leaving gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only vaguely relates date parameters to the cycle's computed window and does not explain org_id or year. Significantly deficient in parameter documentation.

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 returns a deduped continuing-window total split by Raised vs Loans, counting each receipt once across multiple reports. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_summary or get_contributions.

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 deduped continuing totals but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No 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

Other Tools