Estimate run cost before campaign launch (model-based estimate, not billable).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| intent | Yes | ||
| vertical | Yes | ||
| access_token | No | ||
| tenant_api_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the estimate is model-based and not billable, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether it modifies state, requires specific authentication, or what happens if inputs are invalid, leaving some transparency gaps.
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 sentence with no filler, immediately stating the tool's purpose and a key behavioral caveat. It is front-loaded and 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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It does not explain parameter relationships, required inputs, or how the output schema is populated, so it falls short of complete guidance.
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 description provides no information about the parameters 'intent', 'vertical', 'count', 'access_token', or 'tenant_api_key'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description completely fails to compensate, making it difficult for an agent to correctly populate these fields.
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 the specific verb 'Estimate' with the object 'run cost' and specifies the timing 'before campaign launch', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_campaign. It also notes it's a model-based estimate and not billable, reinforcing the purpose.
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 clearly states the context 'before campaign launch', indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which would have earned a 5.
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: cost estimation, bulk lead export, campaign status, single lead retrieval, vertical listing, campaign creation, and feedback submission. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even get_campaign and get_lead are clearly separated by campaign vs. lead granularity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (estimate_cost, export_leads, get_campaign, get_lead, list_verticals, run_campaign, submit_feedback). This is a uniform and predictable naming convention.
The server has 7 tools, which is well within the ideal 3–15 range. Each tool serves a clear function in the campaign lifecycle without redundancy, making the count appropriate for the domain.
The server covers campaign creation (run_campaign), reading campaign status (get_campaign), lead access (get_lead, export_leads), cost estimation, and feedback. However, it lacks list_campaigns, update_campaign, and delete_campaign, which are notable gaps for managing multiple campaigns. The core workflow is usable but not a full CRUD surface.