Read campaign status with optional leads + scorecard (progressive disclosure).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| leads_limit | No | ||
| access_token | No | ||
| include_leads | No | ||
| tenant_api_key | No | ||
| include_scorecard | 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation, which implies non-destructive behavior, and mentions progressive disclosure as a design trait. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'progressive disclosure' precisely entails.
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 that is front-loaded and concise. Every word contributes to the overview, and there is no redundant or extraneous content.
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?
While an output schema exists and the tool is a simple read operation, the description is sparse. It does not clarify the role of auth parameters or the exact meaning of progressive disclosure. Sibling tools and parameter count suggest more context is needed for correct invocation, but the description remains minimally adequate.
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%, and the description only minimally compensates by mentioning optional leads and scorecard. It does not explain campaign_id, access_token, tenant_api_key, or leads_limit, leaving several parameters without semantic context beyond their names and defaults.
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 reads campaign status, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also mentions optional leads and scorecard, distinguishing it from siblings like get_lead (single lead) and run_campaign (executes campaigns).
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 'progressive disclosure' implies a usage pattern of starting with this tool and then drilling down, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use get_campaign versus get_lead or export_leads. Usage context is implied but not clearly stated.
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.