Merkl MCP Server

Opportunity Campaigns

opportunities-campaigns

Retrieve campaigns for a Merkl opportunity by ID, with optional filters for test, point, token types, and sub-campaign exclusion.

Instructions

GET /v4/opportunities/{id}/campaigns

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The id of the opportunity. Pattern: (([0-9])-([0-9A-Z])-(0x([0-9A-Za-z])+))\|([0-9]{1,20})
`test`	No	Include test campaigns
`point`	No	Include point campaigns
`campaigns`	No	Include campaign data. Will slow down the request
`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
`opportunity`	Yes	Opportunity with related campaigns 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 behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the endpoint path. It does not mention required permissions, rate limits, response shape, or the fact that sub-campaigns and different token types are involved.

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?

It is a single line with no waste, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. The one sentence that exists conveys almost no actionable information.

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?

An output schema exists and schema coverage is complete, which lowers the bar, but for a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and many adjacent campaign/opportunity siblings, a bare endpoint path leaves the agent without enough context to choose or invoke it confidently.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters (including the note that 'campaigns' slows the request). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation at full coverage.

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 a raw HTTP endpoint path, "GET /v4/opportunities/{id}/campaigns", which essentially restates the tool name in URL form rather than stating in plain language what the tool does. It hints at retrieving campaigns for an opportunity but provides no verb+resource phrasing that distinguishes it from siblings like campaigns-search or opportunities-get.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance whatsoever about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (campaigns-search, campaigns-get, campaigns-count, opportunities-get). No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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

Deploy Server