get_campaignGet one campaign's configuration (keywords, search context, reply settings) plus live stats: posts discovered, replies by status. Free. Use to check progress after generate_posts or before adjusting the campaign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | Campaign UUID (from list_campaigns or create_campaign) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only, so the bar is lower; the description adds meaningful context by mentioning 'live stats', 'free', and the categories of data returned. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint and gives useful behavioral expectations.
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 tightly written and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds unique information with no redundancy or filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned content: configuration fields and live stats. It could be marginally richer on exactly what status values appear for replies, but for a one-parameter read tool it is sufficiently complete.
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 schema already documents campaign_id fully as 'Campaign UUID (from list_campaigns or create_campaign)' with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get one campaign's configuration') and lists exactly what is returned, differentiating it from list_campaigns and other campaign-related tools. It is impossible to mistake this for a list or write operation.
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 explicitly tells the agent when to call it: after generate_posts or before adjusting the campaign. It does not state formal exclusions or compare direct alternatives, but for a single-resource read tool this is clear enough.
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.
Most tools map cleanly to a distinct resource and action: campaigns, posts, products, research, content spaces, and submissions. A few pairs are close—`create_campaign` vs `create_content_campaign` and `check_balance` vs `get_earnings`—but the detailed descriptions make the intended selection clear.
The set largely follows a consistent `verb_noun` snake_case pattern (`list_campaigns`, `generate_posts`, `update_campaign`, `submit_participation`). Minor deviations keep it from a perfect score: `credit_history` lacks a verb, and `create_campaign` reads as generic next to the more specific `create_content_campaign`.
30 tools is high and makes the server feel heavy, but the domain genuinely spans products, credits, campaigns, research, post discovery, content spaces, boosts, and participation rewards. The breadth mostly earns the count, though it sits on the wrong side of the typical 3–15 range.
The core end-to-end workflow is covered: create and configure campaigns, discover and refine posts, run research, find opportunities, submit work, and measure results. Gaps exist but are minor for the central purpose—product listings can’t be updated or deleted, and delegates can be added but not removed.