Skip to main content
Glama

Ballast - Cold Email

Get campaign stats

get_campaign_stats
Read-only

Daily time-series email metrics for a campaign or all campaigns. Returns daily time-series counts (day-by-day sent, replied, opened, bounced, positive) for a specific campaign (pass campaignId) or all campaigns combined over the last N days.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_campaign_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNo7, 30 or 90 days
campaignIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds useful context by listing the returned daily counts: sent, replied, opened, bounced, and positive. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or permission requirements, but it covers the core behavioral contract well.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by scope and parameter behavior. Every sentence adds useful information with no redundant restatement of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the shape of the return value as daily time-series counts. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the main remaining gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from the similarly named analytics sibling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, with campaignId undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by explaining that campaignId scopes results to one campaign and that omitting it combines all campaigns, while also clarifying the trailing-day semantics of days.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: daily time-series email metrics for a campaign or all campaigns. It clearly defines the returned metric counts and scope, but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the close sibling get_campaign_analytics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains that passing campaignId returns stats for one campaign while omitting it returns all campaigns combined over the last N days. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_campaign_analytics or get_campaign.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources