Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
getcourse-mcp

getcourse-mcp

by skiddgoddamn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

gc_add_to_mailing_category

Add a user to a mailing category by email and category ID. This subscribes them to the specified mailing list.

Instructions

Добавить пользователя в категорию рассылок (по categoryId из gc_list_mailing_categories).

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": {
      "email": "<email>",
      "categoryId": "<categoryId>"
    },
    "name": "gc_add_to_mailing_category"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesEmail пользователя.
categoryIdYesID категории рассылок (см. gc_list_mailing_categories).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
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 that this is an add operation but does not mention side effects, permissions, duplicate handling, or whether the user must exist. Basic transparency but not detailed.

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?

Single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key prerequisite. No unnecessary 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what it does and where to get the needed IDs. Could mention if the email must correspond to an existing user, but not essential.

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 adequate parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by referencing gc_list_mailing_categories for the categoryId, but does not provide new semantic 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 the action 'Add a user' and the resource 'mailing category', with a reference to gc_list_mailing_categories for obtaining the categoryId. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gc_remove_from_mailing_category and gc_add_to_groups.

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 by referencing gc_list_mailing_categories but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. No guidance on prerequisites or conditions.

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