Skip to main content
Glama

Get campaign report

get_campaign_report
Read-onlyIdempotent

One campaign's results: sent, delivered, opens, clicks and unsubscribes with rates, and its top links.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_campaign_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe campaign's id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context by naming the exact metrics returned, but does not state how behavior differs for draft/unsent campaigns, whether rates are included per-metric, or whether data is delayed.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and lists the payload. It earns its place with no filler, though the fragment style ('One campaign's results: ...') is terse enough that it reads as a label rather than guidance.

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 no output schema, the description does help by enumerating returned metrics, which is a meaningful contribution. However, for a report tool it omits date-range or scope assumptions and any indication of return shape beyond metric names, leaving moderate gaps.

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 100% and the single id parameter is fully described there, so the description adds nothing about parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries full parameter documentation.

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?

The description states a specific verb-and-resource pair ('One campaign's results') and enumerates the metrics returned (sent, delivered, opens, clicks, unsubscribes, rates, top links). It clearly distinguishes itself from get_campaign (which returns the campaign entity) by emphasizing report metrics, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as campaign id format or whether the campaign must have already sent. An agent must infer that this is the tool for post-send analytics rather than campaign configuration.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.