Skip to main content
Glama

raisely

by io.usefulapi

Record a donation

create_donation
Destructive

MUTATES Raisely data: records a donation (use for OFFLINE/manual donations — e.g. cash or cheque). Raisely API: POST /donations with the body wrapped as { data: {...} }. Required by the API: amount (integer, in cents/smallest currency unit), currency (3-letter code), email (donor), type (ONLINE or OFFLINE), method (payment gateway, e.g. OFFLINE). Link it to a campaign/profile via campaignUuid/profileUuid. Everything else (firstName, lastName, message, date, items, public, private, ...) goes through fields. Returns the created donation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoONLINE or OFFLINE (default OFFLINE — this tool is for manual/offline donations).
emailYesEmail address of the donor. Required.
amountYesTotal donation amount in the smallest currency unit (e.g. cents). Required.
fieldsNoAdditional documented Raisely fields to send in the JSON write body's `data` object — merged OVER the typed fields above.
methodNoThe payment gateway/method, e.g. "OFFLINE", "CREDIT". Required by the API.
currencyYes3-letter currency code, e.g. AUD, USD, GBP. Required.
lastNameNoDonor last name.
firstNameNoDonor first name.
profileUuidNoUuid of the fundraising profile the donation is credited to.
campaignUuidNoUuid of the campaign the donation belongs to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses mutation ('MUTATES Raisely data'), the POST endpoint, the { data: ... } wrapper, required API fields, and return value. It also explains the catch-all 'fields' behavior. This goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation with specific behavioral context.

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 a single dense paragraph; while not broken into sections, every sentence carries essential information. Slightly long but appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, required fields, usage context, and return value. It lacks error handling and auth details but is otherwise thorough for a mutating tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'fields' is a catch-all merged over typed fields, explaining amount is in cents, and describing how campaignUuid/profileUuid link the donation, going beyond 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 'records a donation' with a specific verb and resource, and specifies it is for OFFLINE/manual donations, distinguishing it from sibling read tools like get_donation or list_donations.

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?

Explicitly says 'use for OFFLINE/manual donations', provides the API endpoint, required fields, and how to link to campaign/profile, giving clear guidance on when and how to invoke the tool.

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

All raisely toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool is clearly scoped to a specific resource and action. The get_/list_/create_/update_ prefixes distinguish reads from mutations, and the convenience listers are explicitly labeled, so there is no real overlap or confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names largely follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, update_). The only outlier is raisely_request, which is a generic escape hatch but breaks the pattern slightly.

Tool Count3/5

With 23 tools, the server is on the heavy side. While each tool maps to a distinct API endpoint, several convenience wrappers (list_campaign_donations, list_user_donations) add redundancy without significantly expanding functionality.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is heavily read-oriented. Many core resources like campaigns, subscriptions, posts, and orders lack create/update/delete operations, and the read-only raisely_request cannot fill these gaps, leaving agents unable to perform common management tasks.

Resources