Skip to main content
Glama

ProductClank

by com.productclank

Read a campaign's participation brief

get_campaign_brief
Read-only

The full brief for one campaign: what to create or do (action message, brief sections, content types), how submissions are judged (eligibility + selection criteria), rewards, deadline, and how many submissions the user has left. Free, read-only. If the brief links external instructions (e.g. a skill file), fetch and follow them. Then: create the content or take the action WITH the user, and call submit_campaign_work with the proof.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
campaign_idYesCampaign id from find_open_campaigns

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Find_occasions sets readOnlyHint:true; resets is read-only and free. It further describes non-obvious behavior: externally linked instructions must be fetched and followed, and that the tool implies a downstream submission step. This is valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations already reveal. It does not contradict 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-sized, starts with the essence, and uses a compact list to convey many required elements. The second sentence adds contextual instruction without over-inflation, although the last sentence includes downstream steps that are not strictly performed by this tool.

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?

Since the tool has no output schema, the description carries responsibility and adequately enumerates return value: campaign action message, sections, content types, eligibility criteria, judging, rewards, deadline, and remaining submission limit. It also warns about external instruction links, making it reasonably complete for the task of consuming the brief.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already explains that campaign_id comes from find_open_campaigns. The description adds no extra parametric semantics such as formatting, ownership, or relationship to the user granted submission state.

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 clearly states the tool is a full participation brief for one campaign and enumerates its contents (action message, sections, judging criteria, rewards, deadline, submissions left). This is more specific than a generic read-only campaign tool, though it does not explicitly compare itself to the sibling get_campaign, so it stops just short of full sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description communicates the flow around the tool: read the brief, follow any external instructions, then work with the user and submit_campaign_work. That is a clear context, but the overall purpose describes a workflow when it should be used before submission, and unlike a direct alternative, it does not offer any differentiation from sibling campaign/brief tools. Explicit 'when not to use' guidance is also absent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ProductClank toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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`.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources