Merkl MCP Server

Get Campaign

campaigns-get

Fetch a Merkl campaign by numeric ID to view its details, with optional filters for test, point, pre-TGE, token type, and sub-campaign inclusion.

Instructions

GET /v4/campaigns/{id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The id of the campaign
`test`	No	Include test campaigns
`point`	No	Include point campaigns
`tokenTypes`	No	Filter by token type. Use POINT to include point campaigns and PRETGE to include preTGE campaigns.
`excludeSubCampaigns`	No	Exclude sub-campaigns from the results

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`campaign`	Yes	Campaign object or null if not found

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.9Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides zero insight into whether the call is read-only (implied by GET), what happens on a missing id, authentication or rate-limit requirements, or how the five optional filtering parameters (test, point, tokenTypes, excludeSubCampaigns) affect the returned campaign. The description is a bare URL pattern.

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

Conciseness1/5

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

The entire description is a single URL template. While extremely short, it is under-specified rather than concise, and it fails to front-load any purpose or usage information an agent needs.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with five parameters, optional filters, and a sibling search tool, the description is completely inadequate. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still omits all selection guidance, behavioral context, and differentiation from siblings.

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%, and the schema fully documents all five parameters including defaults and enum usage. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 an HTTP verb and path: 'GET /v4/campaigns/{id}'. It technically identifies the resource (campaigns) and action (get), but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds no distinguishing information from the sibling 'campaigns-search'.

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 campaigns-search, campaigns-count, or opportunities-campaigns. The agent must infer that a single campaign is fetched by id while search handles query-based retrieval.

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

Deploy Server