OpenCollective MCP Server

oc_set_budget

Idempotent

Set a yearly budget in EUR for a collective by specifying its slug and amount.

Instructions

Set the yearly budget goal for a collective.

Example: Set 800 EUR yearly budget for goingdark collective. Requires token with 'account' scope.

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_set_budget"
  }
}

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 indicates a write operation ('Set'), consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). It adds behavioral context by specifying the required auth scope. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an example, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and follows with a clear example and scope requirement.

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 output schema exists, the description reasonably focuses on input and preconditions. It mentions required scope and provides an example. Minor gap: does not explain behavior on duplicate call, but idempotentHint covers that.

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?

The input schema already provides clear descriptions for each parameter (slug, title, amount). The tool description reinforces this with an example (e.g., '800 EUR yearly budget for goingdark'), adding practical context beyond schema details.

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's action ('Set the yearly budget goal for a collective') and provides an explicit example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like oc_edit_account_setting by specifying the unique purpose of setting a yearly budget.

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 mentions that a token with 'account' scope is required, providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar operations.

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