droptrack_get_campaign_detailsGet full campaign details, including subject, playlist identity and track count, saved and actual recipient counts, status, Reply-To email, creator test-recipient email, and settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaignId | Yes | The campaign ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | Structured DropTrack result returned by this tool |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing what data is returned, but it does not address error behavior, auth, or rate limits; this is acceptable given the read-only annotations but not exceptional.
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?
One compact sentence that front-loads the verb-resource pair and then lists relevant fields, with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.
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 read-only detail lookup with one required parameter, an output schema, and readOnly/destructive annotations, the description gives an agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. No critical operational context is missing.
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 single parameter campaignId is fully documented in the schema with type and description, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get full campaign details') and enumerates concrete fields such as subject, recipient counts, status, and settings. This makes the tool's scope immediately clear and distinguishes it from sibling analytics or list tools.
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 'full campaign details' clearly conveys the intended use case: retrieving the complete detail record for a single campaign. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose statement provides sufficient context within the large sibling set.
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 target distinct resources and actions, but several clusters are easy to confuse: get_track_analysis vs get_track_analytics vs get_track_tags, plus analyze_audio/request_track_tagging/auto_tag_tracks overlap in the audio-analysis/tagging space. The descriptions do help separate them, so careful agents can disambiguate, but the naming alone creates real misselection risk.
All tools share the droptrack_ prefix, use snake_case, and follow a verb-first noun pattern, with list for collections and get for single items. Minor inconsistencies exist—add_contact vs create_contact_list, browse vs list, auto_tag_tracks—but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
At 55 tools this is far beyond the recommended 3-15 range and well over the 25+ threshold. Many tools are near variants of each other, especially company-level vs label-level ads, analytics, and wallet tools, inflating the surface area and making selection harder.
The set covers many domains and some workflows are complete, such as album art generation/polling/acceptance/deletion and track tagging request/poll/apply. However, core lifecycle gaps remain: no update or delete for campaigns, contacts, or contact lists, no playlist mutation tools, and AI press-release/bio workflows end at polling without a save or publish step.