list_campaign_creator_performanceRank campaign creators by tracked-video performance metrics within a date range, sorted by views, likes, comments, shares, or collects.
Rank campaign creators by tracked-video period metrics. These are campaign metrics, not creator profile statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| start | Yes | ||
| offset | No | ||
| sort_by | No | views | |
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| granularity | No | day |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that results rank creators by tracked-video period metrics, but it omits pagination behavior, result ordering details beyond the schema, and any caveats about campaign scope.
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 tight sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the contrasting clarification follows immediately.
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 7-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is too thin. It should clarify pagination, how campaign_id scopes results, date period semantics, and what performance ranking is returned, rather than only distinguishing campaign metrics from creator profile statistics.
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% for 7 parameters. The description only indirectly implies period metrics (start/end) and metric ranking (sort_by), while leaving campaign_id, limit, offset, granularity, and date-format expectations undocumented.
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 states a specific action ('Rank') and resource ('campaign creators') scoped to 'tracked-video period metrics.' It also distinguishes itself from creator profile statistics, though it does not explicitly name siblings such as list_campaign_creators or get_creator.
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 sentence 'These are campaign metrics, not creator profile statistics' gives useful contrast and implies when to choose this over profile-oriented tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus analogous campaign performance tools or clarify required campaign/date context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.