Get domain-level performance statistics for a sent campaign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| limit | No | Number of domain results to return | |
| api_key | No | MailerCloud API key | |
| campaign_id | Yes | Campaign ID,required |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, so the description only needs to add behavior context. It adds the constraint 'for a sent campaign', which is useful for ensure the agent checks the campaign status. Minor gaps exist, such as mention of pagination behavior, but the description contributes beyond the annotations.
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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key verb and resource. Although it is minimal, it is suitably concise; a slightly longer description with pagination hints would add value, but the current structure is effective.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequately complete. All parameters are documented in the schema and the main behavioral constraint (association with a sent campaign) is explicitly stated. However, lack of detail on the return format or pagination leaves some ambiguity for the agent.
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?
The input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add additional semantics beyond schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The optional 'page' and 'limit' are described in schema, and the description does not need to elaborate.
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 states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource: 'domain-level performance statistics for a sent campaign'. This precisely conveys the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from other campaign-related tools like get_campaign or analyze_campaign_health.
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?
The description implies the tool is for sent campaigns (a usage condition), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The context that it focuses on domain-level stats is clear through the name and description, but no explicit exclusion or comparison is provided.
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 purposes are largely distinct, with clear separation between CRUD operations, analytics, and deliverability tools. Some overlap exists between get_campaign, analyze_campaign, and campaign_health_dashboard, but descriptions clarify scope sufficiently.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_, get_, create_, update_, delete_, send_). Minor exceptions like campaign_health_dashboard and engagement_funnel are descriptive but break the pattern.
With 47 tools, this is a very large surface area. While the variety reflects the breadth of email marketing operations, the count exceeds what is typically manageable and suggests potential redundancy or over-scoping.
The tool set covers most core workflows: contact/list management, campaign lifecycle, templates, webhooks, analytics, and transactional email. Minor gaps like no delete for templates or tags are acceptable but not fatal.
