get detailed analytics for a specific campaign. requires read scope.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_campaign_analytics"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | campaign ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description contributes one piece of non-schema information — "requires read scope" — which is genuine auth context, but it says nothing about what window of analytics is returned, whether results are aggregated, or any rate/volume characteristics.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no filler. It is efficient, though the very terse phrasing leaves no room for the scoping/alternative guidance that would have made it stronger.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the essentials are present. However, there is no output schema, so the description should have said what the "detailed analytics" consist of (metrics, time range, granularity) — an agent cannot predict the response shape.
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?
With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents that the input is a campaign UUID. The description adds no further meaning about the ID, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("get detailed analytics") scoped to "a specific campaign," which is enough to distinguish it from a campaign-metadata getter or an account-wide overview. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the closest siblings such as get_analytics_overview or get_performance_metrics, keeping it short of a 5.
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 phrase "for a specific campaign" implies the scoping condition (use when you have one campaign ID rather than wanting aggregate/overview data), but it never states when to prefer get_analytics_overview, get_performance_metrics, or analyze_campaign. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
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.