Get a campaign's status and delivery counts (awaiting launch, queued, sending, sent, skipped). Use to answer "how is my campaign doing?".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | Campaign id |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds concrete detail about the delivery count categories (awaiting launch, queued, sending, sent, skipped), which is useful beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a practical usage phrase. No wasted words; every element adds value.
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?
Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the delivery counts that will be returned and the scenario, making the return contents clear for a simple getter. The single-parameter schema is fully defined, and no additional context is needed.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with the only parameter 'campaign_id' described as 'Campaign id'. The description does not add additional parameter-level details, but the tool's purpose (getting campaign status) implies the parameter identifies the target campaign. Baseline 3 applied.
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 states the tool gets a campaign's status and delivery counts, with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('campaign'), and the parenthetical lists the exact statuses returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings like outreach_list_campaigns and outreach_launch_campaign.
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 provides a direct usage context ('Use to answer "how is my campaign doing?"'), which is a clear cue for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scenario is sufficient for a read-only status getter.
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.
The tool set is largely well-disambiguated with clear prefixes (get_, outreach_, zeekeo_) and detailed descriptions for each tool. Some tools like get_site_explorer and get_site_health could be confused at a glance, but their descriptions clearly separate their purposes. Overall, the naming and descriptions prevent meaningful ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent get_ prefix for data retrieval, with sub-prefixes like get_gsc_, get_page_, and outreach_/zeekeo_ for distinct workflows. There is no mixing of naming conventions (e.g., camelCase) or inconsistent verb usage. The naming pattern is uniform and predictable.
With 63 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical 3-15 tool scope, categorizing as an extreme overflow. Even for a comprehensive SEO and outreach suite, the sheer number is overwhelming and likely includes redundant or overlapping functionality. This would be confusing for agents and users alike.
The tool set covers a wide range of SEO, backlink analysis, Google Search Console data, and outreach workflows, appearing nearly complete for its stated purpose. However, several tools are marked as 'v1 stub' (e.g., get_internal_links, get_schema_markup), indicating incomplete functionality. Despite these gaps, the overall coverage is extensive and well-rounded.
