Skip to main content
Glama

raisely

by io.usefulapi

Update a fundraising profile

update_profile
Destructive

MUTATES Raisely data: updates a fundraising profile's goal/name/story. Raisely API: PATCH /profiles/{path} with the body wrapped as { data: {...} } (only included fields change). Use fields for goal, name, description/story, public, private, and any other documented field. Set overwriteCustomFields:true to overwrite (rather than preserve) unspecified custom fields. The path is never sent in the body.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalNoNew fundraising goal (in the smallest currency unit).
nameNoNew profile name.
pathYesThe profile path (URL slug) or uuid to update (path only; required).
fieldsNoAdditional documented Raisely fields to send in the JSON write body's `data` object — merged OVER the typed fields above.
overwriteCustomFieldsNoWhen true, overwrite (instead of preserve) custom fields not included in this update.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the destructiveHint annotation: partial update semantics ('only included fields change'), the requirement to wrap the body as { data: {...} }, the overwriteCustomFields behavior, and the fact that path is never sent in the body. These are valuable for predicting side effects. 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 appropriately concise: three sentences that are information-dense and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence contributes essential details without redundancy.

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?

Covers the tool's core behavior, partial update semantics, and a custom field quirk. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns or error behavior, leaving some incompleteness for an agent expecting a response format.

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 descriptions cover all parameters, so the description goes beyond by clarifying how `fields` maps to goal/name/story and other attributes, and how the body should be wrapped. This adds integration context, though the schema already handles most parameter meaning.

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 updates a fundraising profile, naming specific fields (goal/name/story) and the REST endpoint. It is unambiguous and distinguishes this from the many sibling read/list tools as well as create tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (updating profile attributes) and explains the API mechanics, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like raisely_request or state when not to use it. Still, the intended use is easy to infer.

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