slicktext_get_campaign_statsPerformance of one campaign: contacts reached, clicks, click_rate, unique clicks, unsubscribes, unsubscribe_rate, orders, revenue, average order value, revenue per message, plus the campaign, its audiences and links. GET /brands/{brand_id}/analytics/campaigns/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | Group the results by source. | |
| campaign_id | Yes | The campaign id (a positive integer). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's main added value is disclosing the return surface (metrics plus campaign, audiences, links) and the underlying GET endpoint. It adds no auth, rate-limit, or pagination context, so it is a modest but real supplement to the 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?
Effectively one front-loaded sentence naming the resource and its metrics, followed by the endpoint. The long metric enumeration is informative rather than padding, though the raw field list is slightly dense.
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?
With no output schema present, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the returned fields and noting the included campaign, audiences, and links. This is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret the tool, though the group-by-source behavior and return shape are not elaborated.
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% and both parameters (campaign_id, group-by-source enum) are fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Performance of one campaign') and enumerates the returned metrics, making the tool's scope unambiguous. It does not name or differentiate against close siblings like slicktext_get_campaign or slicktext_get_analytics, which keeps it just short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by the metric list (fetch performance metrics for a given campaign), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as slicktext_get_analytics or slicktext_get_campaign. An agent can infer intent but must choose between siblings on its own.
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.