Instantly MCP Server

get_campaign_analytics

Retrieve campaign performance metrics and analytics data for specified date ranges to monitor and evaluate email marketing effectiveness.

Instructions

Get analytics for campaigns

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_analytics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`campaign_id`	No	Specific campaign ID (optional)
`end_date`	No	End date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`start_date`	No	Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 21, 2025

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the action without details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or side effects. It lacks critical context for a read operation with optional parameters, making it inadequate for informed use.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning full marks for conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with optional parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what analytics are returned, how optional parameters affect results, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for agent decision-making.

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 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying analytics retrieval, which is already covered by the tool name and purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Get analytics for campaigns' states a basic purpose (verb+resource) but is vague about what analytics are retrieved or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_campaign_analytics_overview'. It doesn't specify scope (e.g., metrics, timeframes) or distinguish itself clearly from alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_campaign_analytics_overview' or 'get_campaign'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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