bca-mcp

book_kol_campaign

Broker a KOL campaign by providing contact email, budget, and objective. Returns campaign ID and next steps for coordination.

Instructions

Broker a KOL campaign via BCA Studio CRM. Required: contact_email, budget_usd, objective. Pro tier. Returns campaign_id + next steps.

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": {
      "contact_email": "<contact_email>",
      "budget_usd": "<budget_usd>",
      "objective": "<objective>"
    },
    "name": "book_kol_campaign"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`contact_email`	Yes	Required. Contact email for campaign coordination.
`budget_usd`	Yes
`objective`	Yes
`target_audience`	No
`launch_window_days`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1May 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that it returns 'campaign_id + next steps' and implies mutation, but lacks details on idempotency, error handling, or specific authorization beyond Pro tier.

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 extremely concise—four short sentences that front-load the purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the complexity (5 params, 3 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers core purpose, required fields, and return value. However, it omits explanation of optional parameters and does not elaborate on the returned structure or behavior, leaving some gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20% (only contact_email has a description). The description lists required parameters but does not explain optional ones (target_audience, launch_window_days) or provide additional meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('broker') and explicitly names the resource ('KOL campaign via BCA Studio CRM'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings, which are mostly data retrieval or risk-checking tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly states required fields (contact_email, budget_usd, objective) and a prerequisite (Pro tier). However, it does not mention when to avoid using this tool or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

Deploy Server