OpenCollective MCP Server

oc_execute_graphql

Run custom GraphQL queries against OpenCollective API v2 to handle operations beyond standard tools, with auto-authentication.

Instructions

Execute a raw GraphQL query or mutation against the OpenCollective API v2.

Use this as an escape hatch for operations not covered by other tools. The API endpoint is https://api.opencollective.com/graphql/v2. Authentication is applied automatically if OPENCOLLECTIVE_TOKEN is set.

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "oc_execute_graphql"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ctx`	No
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by stating that authentication is applied automatically if the token is set. It does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). However, it could mention potential side effects of mutations.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's complexity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers the endpoint, authentication, and usage rationale. It is adequate but could note that mutations are permitted (despite destructiveHint=false, the description implies it).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates slightly by specifying the API version (v2) but does not detail the format or constraints of the query or variables beyond the schema's minimal 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 'Execute a raw GraphQL query or mutation against the OpenCollective API v2', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings, as no other sibling offers raw GraphQL execution.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Use this as an escape hatch for operations not covered by other tools', providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It also mentions the endpoint and automatic authentication.

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