Skip to main content
Glama

Get campaign reviews

getCampaignReviews
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns up to 20 periodic campaign reviews with metrics, findings and proposed changes. Proposals are not applied. metrics.delivered counts touches, including pending LinkedIn invitations, not people. A slice's positive rate counts every touch to a positive contact, so it is no share of people. Each review covers its own period; never add them.

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "getCampaignReviews"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the 20-review limit, that proposals are not applied, that metrics.delivered counts touches rather than people, and that reviews must not be aggregated across periods. These are meaningful behavioral and interpretive details that annotations do not cover.

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 front-loaded with the return behavior, then adds three short, dense caveats. Every sentence provides useful information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what comes back and warning about metric interpretation. The main gap is that it does not clarify what the required id parameter refers to.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, params.id, has 0% schema description coverage and is not explained in the description. The phrase 'campaign reviews' hints that the ID is a campaign ID, but the description never explicitly states that.

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: 'Returns up to 20 periodic campaign reviews with metrics, findings and proposed changes.' It makes the scope clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from close siblings such as getReviewSummary or listReview.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns and how to interpret some metrics, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like getReviewSummary, listReview, or getCampaignDecisions. There are no exclusions or selection criteria.

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.

Resources