Retrieve link-click data for a specific Meser10 campaign by providing its campaign ID. Use it to read campaign engagement metrics without modifying records.
Calls GetCampaignLinkClicks on the Meser10 platform. Read-only. SOAP operation: GetCampaignLinkClicks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iCampaignID | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It claims "Read-only," which is a useful trait, but says nothing about return shape, authentication, error behavior, date scoping, or result volume.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is short and front-loaded, but the third sentence ("SOAP operation: GetCampaignLinkClicks") merely repeats the first, and the size is achieved by omitting content rather than by efficient expression.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, no parameter documentation, and undifferentiated siblings, this definition leaves too much unspecified for an agent to call the tool confidently. Only the read-only hint and the platform name are supplied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter iCampaignID is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning about the ID's format, source, or whether it is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description effectively restates the tool name ("Calls GetCampaignLinkClicks") rather than stating a verb+resource in plain terms. It never explains that it returns link-click data for a campaign, and it fails to distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling get_campaign_link_clicks_by_date.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus get_campaign_link_clicks_by_date, get_campaign_summary, or the other campaign siblings. The agent must infer the selection 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.