Skip to main content
Glama
getsimba-ai

Simba MCP Server

Official
by getsimba-ai

Get Campaign Incrementality

get_campaign_incrementality
Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate incremental ROAS per campaign or ad set from a fitted MMM by scaling channel incrementality through platform attribution, alongside platform and last-click ROAS.

Instructions

Incremental ROAS per campaign (or ad set), beside the platform's own ROAS and last-click ROAS, by pushing the model's channel incrementality down through the platform's attribution.

THE ASSUMPTION, FIRST. Simba measures incrementality at channel grain. For each model channel over the window, the incrementality factor = the channel's MMM incremental revenue (the model's per-period rows, under its fitted attribution convention) / the platform-attributed value of the campaigns mapped to that channel. Each campaign's incremental ROAS is that factor x its platform ROAS, so campaign incremental revenue sums to the channel's. This assumes the platform over-credits every campaign in a channel equally. It does not: retargeting and brand search are over-credited more, so one factor flatters them. The response warns when such campaigns share a channel with prospecting (retargeting_shares_channel_factor); the remedies are to map them to their own model channel (set_campaign_mapping) or to calibrate the factor with an incrementality test. Nothing here is a causal per-campaign measurement; every row says how it was made.

Per row, method is "attribution_scaled" or, when a channel's campaigns carry no platform value, "spend_share" (the channel's incremental revenue shared by spend). A campaign without platform value in a channel that has some gets iroas: null and is named (platform_value_missing); it is never given a share. factor_source is "mmm" or "test": a completed incrementality test in the model's project that names the channel and overlaps the window replaces the model's factor (lift in revenue units / the channel's platform value during the test); factor_mmm stays beside it.

interval is "pending" (the 94% bands come from the model's posterior draws, computed by a background job the first time a window is asked for; ask again in a few minutes), "ready" (factor_interval per channel, iroas_hdi and incremental_revenue_hdi per row) or "unavailable" (interval_reason says why; point estimates stand, no band is invented). uninformative warns when a channel's band spans zero.

Returns {model_hash, window: {start, end}, level, currency, interval, interval_reason, channels: [{channel, factor, factor_source, factor_mmm, factor_interval, revenue_interval, factor_draws_mean, method, mmm_revenue, platform_value, spend, campaigns, test, warnings}], rows: [{platform, account_id, campaign_id, campaign_name, adset_id, channel, spend, platform_value, last_click_value, days, platform_roas, last_click_roas, incremental_revenue, iroas, incremental_revenue_hdi, iroas_hdi, method, factor_source}], unmapped: [{..., spend, platform_roas, last_click_roas}], warnings: [{code, message, channel?, campaigns?, reason?}], provenance: {source_versions, as_of, map_version, attribution_convention, link}}. Warning codes: retargeting_shares_channel_factor, platform_value_missing, kpi_not_revenue, currency_mismatch, uninformative, unmapped_spend, interval_unavailable, test_override_skipped.

Args: model_hash: A fitted MMM with a campaign map (set_campaign_mapping). start, end: Optional ISO dates (YYYY-MM-DD), inclusive. Default: the overlap of the model's data and the campaign facts. level: "campaign" (default) or "adset"; ad-set rows inherit their campaign's channel and factor and sum to the campaign row.

Errors carry a code: model_not_found (404), campaign_facts_empty (404: no facts, or none in the window), invalid_window (400: empty or reversed; the body gives both spans), model_not_mmm (400: a VAR model has no channel revenue rows), model_incomplete (400).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNo
levelNocampaign
startNo
model_hashYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.14.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover only the read-only/idempotent safety profile, and the description adds a great deal beyond them: the core grain-assumption and its bias direction, method variants (attribution_scaled vs spend_share), factor_source override semantics, the 'pending' interval background-job behavior ('ask again in a few minutes'), nulling rules for platform_value_missing, and error codes. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose and the crucial assumption are front-loaded, but the description then enumerates the entire return payload (channels/rows/unmapped/provenance fields) and the full warning-code list even though an output schema exists and already documents return values. That redundancy makes it considerably longer than necessary for its job.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a methodology-heavy analytical tool, the definition covers the assumption, method provenance, interval lifecycle, warning semantics, error codes, and parameter defaults. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret its output caveats is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden and does: model_hash is defined as 'A fitted MMM with a campaign map (set_campaign_mapping)', start/end as inclusive ISO dates defaulting to the data/facts overlap, and level's campaign default with ad-set inheritance and summing behavior.

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 opening line names a specific verb, resource and scope: 'Incremental ROAS per campaign (or ad set), beside the platform's own ROAS and last-click ROAS.' It further distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_campaign_report and get_incrementality_test by explaining the attribution-scaling methodology that is unique to this endpoint.

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?

The description gives strong contextual guidance and even routes the agent elsewhere when the assumption is violated ('map them to their own model channel (set_campaign_mapping) or to calibrate the factor with an incrementality test'), plus the key caveat 'Nothing here is a causal per-campaign measurement.' It stops short of an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-that comparison against get_campaign_report, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools