get-referral-campaign-attributionShows verified referral campaign totals and conversion activity without returning referral tokens or bearer-like links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Lookback window in days. | |
| campaign_id | No | Referral campaign ID returned by search-referral-campaigns. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral information beyond that: the returned data is 'verified' and the tool intentionally omits referral tokens and bearer-like links. This security-relevant detail is not available from annotations or the schema alone.
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?
The description is a single well-formed sentence with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the security caveat is placed naturally at the end where it adds value without obscuring the main action.
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 read-only tool with two optional parameters, the description is adequate for selecting and invoking it. However, there is no output schema, and the description only vaguely says 'totals and conversion activity' without detailing the expected metrics or response shape, leaving some ambiguity about what exactly will be returned.
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 100%, and the schema clearly defines 'days' as a lookback window and 'campaign_id' as the ID returned by search-referral-campaigns. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly identifies the action and resource: it 'shows verified referral campaign totals and conversion activity.' It also adds a meaningful differentiator by stating that referral tokens or bearer-like links are not returned, which helps distinguish it from campaign preview/search siblings. It stops short of naming the sibling it complements, so it is not a perfect 5.
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?
Usage context is implied by the security-focused caveat: this tool is appropriate when the agent needs totals/conversion activity without exposing tokens or bearer-like links. However, the description never explicitly says when to use this over preview-referral-campaign or search-referral-campaigns, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tool families are organized by resource and action (get/search/preview/reports), so most tools have a distinct purpose. A few near-overlaps exist—customer-service-requests vs search-service-requests and the many campaign preview/search tools—but descriptions generally clarify boundaries.
The set consistently uses kebab-case with recognizable prefixes like get-, search-, preview-, and reports-, making intent predictable. A few noun-phrase tools (complaint-recall-risk, customer-service-requests, operations-parts, jobs-today) break the verb-first pattern, but they remain readable and grouped.
45 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and creates a large surface for agents to navigate, even though the domain is broad. Many tools are narrow read-only variations (e.g., five preview-campaign tools, three reports-* tools), which inflates the count without adding fundamentally new capabilities.
As a read-only/insights server, the surface covers customers, jobs, quotes, invoices, leads, locations, service requests, reviews, campaigns, operations, and reporting with both search and detail access. Minor gaps exist—no get-* for campaign types or social drafts—but these align with the intentionally bounded, safe-read model.