List submissions for a business or campaign, filterable by state (pending/approved/rejected). Returns paginated results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| perPage | No | ||
| businessId | No | ||
| campaignId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that results are paginated and filterable by state, but it does not clarify what happens if businessId/campaignId are both provided or omitted, nor does it mention other behavioral nuances like error handling.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action, scope, filtering, and pagination without unnecessary words. It is efficient and well-structured.
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 gives the essential details for a basic list operation but lacks deeper context like return shape, default behavior, or constraints on combining filters. Given the tool has multiple optional parameters and no output schema, this is a noticeable gap, though it is not critically incomplete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the state and pagination parameters indirectly, but it does not explicitly explain the purpose of businessId or campaignId, nor how they interact. Parameter names help, but the description is insufficient for a low-coverage schema.
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 lists submissions for a business or campaign, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like listActions and listCampaigns by focusing on submissions and mentioning filtering and pagination.
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 clear context on when to use this tool (to list submissions) and mentions filtering and pagination. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the intended use is obvious enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: campaigns, submissions, benchmarks, pricing, actions, influencers. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even getBenchmarks vs getPricing are clearly separated by context.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in camelCase (e.g., createCampaign, listActions, reviewSubmission). The verbs are varied but the structure is uniform, making the set predictable.
10 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and matches the server's scope: campaign creation, stats, submissions, and reference lookups. Each tool earns its place without bloat.
Core lifecycle coverage is solid: create/list/get stats for campaigns, submit/review submissions. Minor gaps exist (no update/delete campaign, no single-submission detail view), but agents can work around them using existing tools.