Merkl MCP Server

Count Campaigns

campaigns-count

Count Merkl campaigns by applying filters such as status, chain, APR, TVL, tokens, tags, and time range to gauge available opportunities.

Instructions

GET /v4/campaigns/count

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Filter by name
`tags`	No	Filter by tag
`test`	No	Include test campaigns
`type`	No	A comma separated list of Campaign type
`point`	No	Include point campaigns
`action`	No	A comma separated list actions. Legal values: POOL,HOLD,DROP,LEND,BORROW,LONG,SHORT,SWAP,INVALID
`search`	No	Search amongst multiple values (token, protocols, tags, campaigns)
`status`	No	A comma separated list of status. Legal values: LIVE,PAST,SOON
`tokens`	No	A comma separated list of token symbol. Use to filter by token
`chainId`	No	A comma separated list of chain ids. Example: ?chainId=1,42161
`chainName`	No	A comma separated list of chain names. Example: ?chainName=ethereum,arbitrum
`campaignId`	No	Search the campaign by campaignId
`identifier`	No	Filter by identifier (mainParameter)
`maximumApr`	No	Maximum APR threshold
`maximumTvl`	No	Maximum TVL threshold in USD
`minimumApr`	No	Minimum APR threshold
`minimumTvl`	No	Minimum TVL threshold in USD
`tokenTypes`	No	Filter by token type. Use POINT to include point campaigns and PRETGE to include preTGE campaigns.
`creatorSlug`	No
`endTimestamp`	No	Filter campaigns ending before this timestamp
`programSlugs`	No	A comma separated list of program ids or slugs. See GET /v4/programs
`opportunityId`	No	Filter by opportunity ID
`rewardTokenId`	No	Filter by reward token ID
`computeChainId`	No	Filter by compute chain ID
`creatorAddress`	No	Filter by creator address
`mainProtocolId`	No	A comma separated list of protocol ids. See GET /v4/protocols
`startTimestamp`	No	Filter campaigns starting after this timestamp
`distributionTypes`	No	Filter by distribution type. Legal values: FIX_REWARD, MAX_REWARD, DUTCH_AUCTION
`rewardTokenSymbol`	No	Filter by campaign with reward token having this symbol
`distributionChainId`	No	Filter by distribution chain ID
`excludeSubCampaigns`	No	Exclude sub-campaigns from the results

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes	Number of campaigns matching the filters

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.9Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no mention of read semantics, return shape, rate limits, or that the many filters behave as AND-combined. A bare URL path provides no behavioral context for a read endpoint with 31 filters.

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 single line 'GET /v4/campaigns/count' is concise but is not a description — it restates the tool name as a URL path with zero added information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient structure.

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 31 optional filters, no annotations, and a sibling set including campaigns-search and campaigns-get, the description is far too thin. Even though an output schema exists, the agent still needs to know when counting is appropriate and how the numerous filters compose, none of which is addressed.

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 coverage is 97% and every parameter has a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about how filters interact (e.g., comma-separated lists, shared search scope across tokens/protocols/tags/campaigns) and provides no examples, so the baseline 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 is only the HTTP endpoint 'GET /v4/campaigns/count'. It implies counting campaigns but does not state what is counted (a scalar count vs. a breakdown), does not differentiate from sibling campaigns-search or campaigns-get, and gives no functional verb phrasing beyond the URL path.

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 on when to use this counting endpoint versus campaigns-search or campaigns-get. There is no mention of pagination-free aggregation or when counting is preferable to listing, leaving the agent to infer intent from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server