get_fundraiserRetrieve an Every.org fundraiser using a nonprofit slug and fundraiser slug; for multi-nonprofit fundraisers, pass special-fundraiser as the nonprofit.
Get an Every.org fundraiser by nonprofit slug and fundraiser slug. For a multi-nonprofit fundraiser, nonprofit is special-fundraiser.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nonprofit | Yes | ||
| fundraiser | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral edge case (multi-nonprofit fundraisers are addressed via 'special-fundraiser'), but says nothing about not-found behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and keys before the edge-case rule. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-key read with no output schema, the description covers identification adequately but omits any indication of what the fundraiser object contains or what happens on a miss. Annotations carry the read-safety story, keeping this at an acceptable but not complete level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it identifies both params as slugs and explains the special 'special-fundraiser' value for multi-nonprofit cases. It stops short of format examples or validation detail, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Every.org fundraiser'), plus the two lookup keys. This is clearly distinguishable from get_nonprofit in practice, but the description never names or contrasts a sibling (e.g., get_fundraiser_raised), so differentiation is left to inference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_causes, browse_nonprofits, get_nonprofit, or get_fundraiser_raised, and no stated prerequisites. The only usage-flavored content is the special-fundraiser convention, which is really a parameter-value rule rather than a when-to-use signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.