get_my_submissionsThe connected user's submissions to one campaign: pending / approved / rejected, with the reviewer's notes. Free, read-only. Use to report outcomes back to the user after submit_campaign_work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description complements the readOnlyHint annotation by adding 'read-only' and 'free', and by disclosing the returned statuses and reviewer notes. It does not exhaustively describe edge cases, but for a read-only status lookup the behavioral transparency is adequate.
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 two sentences: the first front-loads the exact resource and output content, the second adds the usage context. There is no redundant boilerplate, and the most important information appears early.
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 description covers the purpose, result content, read-only nature, and the recommended call flow after submit_campaign_work. Since there is no output schema, a slightly more explicit return-shape description would help, but for a low-complexity read-only tool this is largely 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 only provides a required string parameter with no description (0% coverage). The phrase 'to one campaign' indirectly clarifies that campaign_id identifies the campaign, but the description does not explicitly map the parameter or explain where the identifier comes from, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.
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 identifies the resource ('connected user's submissions') and scope ('to one campaign') and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: pending / approved / rejected states plus reviewer's notes. This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_campaign or 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 description gives an explicit trigger: 'Use to report outcomes back to the user after submit_campaign_work.' This is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions when not to use the tool.
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.