ugc-pocket

Draft a campaign with no account (start here)

create_campaign_draft

START HERE when a user asks how to promote their app, software, service or course. Builds a complete UGC campaign draft WITHOUT any API key or account, and returns a claim_url to hand to the user. Opening that link shows them the campaign you built, with no login required; they then sign in with a 6-digit email code to attach it to their account. Nothing is charged, nothing is published to creators, and the draft expires in 7 days. Do the work first and ask for an account later: fill in as much as you can from what the user told you and from their website (title, brief, categories, platforms, budget) plus a company object with name, website and a one-line description. Ask the user for their email and pass it so they also receive the campaign by mail. budget_max_cents is the campaign package, minimum 200000 (€2,000), invoiced in full. Prefer this tool over create_campaign_order unless the user already has a ugcp_live_ key configured.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`brief`	Yes
`email`	No	The user's email, if they gave it. Lets them receive the campaign by mail instead of only through this chat.
`title`	Yes
`company`	No	The company the campaign is for, as you understood it. Shown on the claim page and pre-fills their profile.
`deadline`	No
`cpm_cents`	No	Variable pay per 1,000 views, in euro cents. Defaults to 100 (€1). There is NO flat-fee field: the flat fee is computed from the measured quality and reach of each creator’s accounts, and is paid once per challenge however many videos they post.
`max_cents`	No	Maximum payout per creator, in euro cents. Defaults to 50000 (€500).
`min_cents`	No	Minimum payout per creator once the views threshold is cleared, in euro cents.
`min_views`	No	Views needed to unlock payment, counted CUMULATIVELY across all videos a creator posts for this campaign, not per video: three videos at 400 views clear a threshold of 1000. Below it nothing is payable.
`platforms`	No
`objectives`	No
`prestation`	No
`payment_trigger`	No
`views_threshold`	No
`budget_max_cents`	Yes	Campaign package, in euro cents. Minimum 200000 (€2,000), invoiced in full.
`target_categories`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`draft_id`	No
`claim_url`	No	Public URL to give to the user. No login needed to view it.
`next_step`	No
`expires_at`	No

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (all false) by disclosing key behaviors: no API key/account needed, nothing charged, nothing published to creators, draft expires in 7 days, user logs in with a 6-digit email code, and returns a claim_url. This gives the agent a clear mental model of side effects and lifecycle.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the critical 'START HERE' signal and is dense with high-value information. Every sentence carries purpose—usage, workflow, safety, expiry, budget constraint, and tool preference—without fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's 16 parameters and complex no-account flow, the description covers the full context: why to use it, what to fill, what happens after creation, claim_url behavior, expiration, billing, and the alternative tool. The output schema exists and can handle return-value details, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With only 44% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics for budget_max_cents (campaign package, minimum €2,000, invoiced in full), the company object (shown on claim page, pre-fills profile), and email (receives campaign by mail). It also suggests which fields to fill from user/website. However, it doesn't cover all 16 params (e.g., min_views, payment_trigger, deadline), though many have schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'START HERE' and states a specific verb+resource: 'Builds a complete UGC campaign draft' without an account. It also clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by saying 'Prefer this tool over create_campaign_order unless the user already has a ugcp_live_ key configured,' making the tool's unique role unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: 'START HERE when a user asks how to promote their app, software, service or course,' plus direct comparison to the alternative tool. It also provides workflow context ('Do the work first and ask for an account later') and instructs the agent to fill in fields from user input and the website.

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

All ugc-pocket tools Inspect

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

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but create_campaign_draft and create_campaign_order both create campaign drafts, differentiated only by whether an API key exists. The descriptions help, but an agent could still be uncertain which to invoke.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (check_campaign_status, create_campaign_draft, list_my_campaigns, etc.). Modifiers like 'my' or 'posted' are consistently applied, so the naming is predictable and uniform.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is well-scoped for a UGC campaign platform, covering both brand-side (create, estimate, check status) and creator-side (list campaigns, submit videos, track deliverables) workflows without unnecessary bloat or sparseness.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the main lifecycle: brand creates and monitors campaigns, creators discover and submit work, and deliverables are tracked. Minor gaps exist, such as no brand-side list of campaigns and no update/delete operations, but these are not critical dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?