Tulina

lemlist_get_campaign_stats

Read-only

Campaign performance (leads reached, opened, replied, bounced…).

Reads lemlist's own counters. Previously derived from one page of activities, which under-counted every campaign past 1000 events — the field names changed with the fix (nbLeads, messagesSent, opened, replied… instead of emails_sent & co).

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": {
      "campaign_id": "<campaign_id>"
    },
    "name": "lemlist_get_campaign_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`_org`	No	Org (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
`full`	No	Also return the per-step (`steps`) and per-channel (`perChannel`) breakdowns, dropped by default for size.
`_group`	No	Équipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
`_run_id`	No	OBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
`_project`	No	Projet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
`channels`	No	Any of `email`, `linkedin`, `others`.
`end_date`	No
`_instance`	No	Instance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.
`send_user`	No	`usr_…\|sender@email` — both halves required.
`start_date`	No
`ab_selected`	No	`A` or `B`, to read one side of a running A/B test.
`campaign_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the counters come from lemlist's own aggregates rather than a single page of activities, and the earlier under-counting bug past 1000 events is explained along with the resulting field-name change. It still does not mention rate limits, latency, or freshness of the counters.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the schema-returned field names are called out compactly. The backstory about the previous page-of-activities derivation is useful for field-name expectations but is slightly longer than needed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 12 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the shape of the response — it lists key counters but not whether they are nested, per-channel, or time-windowed by the date parameters. Enough to call the tool, but not enough to interpret the result confidently.

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?

Schema coverage is 75% and the schema documents the non-obvious filters (channels, ab_selected, send_user, full). The description adds no parameter meaning at all — nothing about how start_date/end_date scope the counters or that `full` drops per-step breakdowns by default. Baseline 3 given the schema already does most of the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb+resource (campaign performance/stats) and enumerates the metrics returned (leads reached, opened, replied, bounced). It implicitly distinguishes itself from activity-derived tools by saying it 'reads lemlist's own counters', but never names the sibling (e.g. lemlist_get_activities) it is not.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: fetch aggregate campaign performance rather than per-event activity data. There is no explicit 'use this when / use X instead' routing, and no mention of prerequisites such as the campaign needing to be running or having historical data.

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

All Tulina tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?