Export campaign leads as JSON or CSV payload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| format | No | json | |
| campaign_id | 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions formats but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements (access_token, tenant_api_key), or behavior around limit and pagination. The word 'export' hints at a read operation, but critical behavioral context is missing.
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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and object. It contains no filler, fluff, or repetitions, 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?
Although an output schema exists, the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and the description provides only a minimal overview. It fails to mention required parameters, authentication, or default behaviors, making it incomplete for effective selection and invocation. The description does not take advantage of the output schema to provide additional context.
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 only adds meaning for 'format' (JSON/CSV) and implicitly for 'campaign_id' (campaign leads), leaving limit, access_token, and tenant_api_key entirely unexplained. The description does not adequately compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 'Export campaign leads as JSON or CSV payload' clearly states a specific verb (export) and resource (campaign leads), and explicitly mentions the output formats. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_lead (single lead) and get_campaign (campaign details), making the purpose unmistakable.
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 implies usage for bulk exporting leads, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_lead or run_campaign. There are no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the usage context is only implied rather than clearly defined.
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.