Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gameball MCP Server

Gameball MCP Server

by Ahmedelmonady
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

getCustomerCampaignsProgress

Get a customer's progress in reward campaigns. Filter by campaign ID or type to view specific campaign performance.

Instructions

🔒 Get reward-campaigns-progres

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "customerId": "<customerId>"
    },
    "name": "getCustomerCampaignsProgress"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoIf the lang header is provided
campaignIdNoFilter the response to a singl
customerIdYes
campaignTypeNoFilter campaigns by type. Use

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. The lock emoji is present but unexplained; there is no mention of read-only nature, authentication, pagination, filtering semantics, or what 'progress' means. The description is utterly non-transparent.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a fragment ('Get reward-campaigns-progres') with a typo, not a structured sentence. Shortness is not conciseness; it lacks even a subject-verb-object construction and omits critical details.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and a domain with many similar tools, the description provides almost no context. It does not explain what 'progress' data is returned, how campaignId and campaignType filters work, or what lang controls.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 params described). The description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the schema already covers most parameters, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Get reward-campaigns-progres' is essentially a typo-ridden restatement of the tool name itself, not a clear statement of function. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like getCustomerStampsProgress or getCustomerTierProgress, which could also be described as 'get progress'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as getCustomerAutomationCampaigns or getCampaignsConfigurations overlap in domain, but the description offers no contextual cues or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools