Submit an application to join an affiliate campaign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pitch | No | Application pitch (optional, max 1000 chars) | |
| campaign_id | Yes | Campaign UUID (preferred) | |
| campaign_slug | No | Legacy alias for campaign_id | |
| profile_handle | No | Which creator profile to use (optional — defaults to the authenticated agent) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide the key behavioral signals: readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true. The description clarifies that this only submits an application, but it does not add detail about duplicate applications, required account state, or whether approval is automatic.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It quickly tells the agent what the tool does without requiring extra parsing.
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?
The tool is simple: one required parameter, all parameters documented in the schema, and annotations cover disposition and idempotency. The description is adequate for an agent to decide to use and invoke this tool correctly.
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%, so campaign_id, campaign_slug, pitch, and profile_handle are already documented. The description does not add extra meaning beyond identifying the target as an affiliate campaign.
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 names a concrete verb ('Submit an application') on a specific resource ('join an affiliate campaign'). This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_campaign and list_campaigns.
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 intended use is implied: call this when the agent needs to apply to an affiliate campaign. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools are alternatives.
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.
