emailoctopus_get_campaign_links_reportGet a campaign's per-link click report — for each link in the campaign, the URL and its click counts. EmailOctopus: GET /campaigns/{campaign_id}/reports/links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | The campaign's id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the return format includes URL and click counts, but does not address pagination, rate limits, or error conditions. Some value added beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the HTTP endpoint is provided efficiently.
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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the output structure. Minor omissions like error handling do not detract significantly.
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 coverage is 100% (one parameter, described). The description merely restates 'campaign_id' without adding extra meaning or context, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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's purpose: retrieving a per-link click report for a campaign, including URL and click counts. It distinguishes from siblings like get_campaign_report by specifying 'links'.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. The description implies usage when link-level click data is needed, but lacks guidance on when not to use or comparisons with other campaign report tools.
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.