flowforge-mcp

flowforge_get_campaign

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a campaign and optionally fold in its analytics, status, leads, or calls in one request; a failed related fetch returns an error note without failing the whole response.

Instructions

Fetch a campaign and, in one step, any of its analytics, status, leads, or calls.

Args: params: campaign_id and optional include list.

Returns: JSON/Markdown with a campaign object plus one key per requested include. A failed include yields an {"error": ...} note rather than failing the whole request.

Error Handling: Returns "Error: Resource not found..." if the ID is wrong.

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "flowforge_get_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a failed include returns an {"error": ...} note instead of failing the whole request, and a bad ID yields a "Resource not found" error. That partial-failure semantics is the kind of detail annotations cannot express.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Clearly sectioned into purpose, Args, Returns and Error Handling, with the core purpose front-loaded in one sentence. The Returns block is slightly verbose for a tool that already has an output schema, but nothing is wasted or repeated.

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?

For a single-parameter read with an output schema, an agent has what it needs: purpose, accepted include values, response shape overview, and both error paths. The only real gap is the unmentioned response_format parameter, which the schema documents anyway.

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?

The description names campaign_id as required and include as an optional list, matching the schema's own documented fields. It omits response_format entirely, and adds no meaning about include values beyond what the enum and per-property descriptions already provide. With the embedded schema carrying rich per-parameter descriptions, this is roughly baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Fetch a campaign") and names the exact extra payloads it can fold in (analytics, status, leads, calls). It is clearly a single-record read rather than a list, so an agent can separate it from siblings like flowforge_list_campaigns without inspecting schemas. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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?

The "in one step" framing implies when to prefer this over making separate analytics/leads/calls calls, which is a useful usage signal. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus flowforge_list_campaign_calls or flowforge_get_call, and no stated preconditions beyond needing a valid ID.

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

Deploy Server