Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Payware MCP Server

Payware MCP Server

Official
by payware
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

payware_campaigns_list_campaigns

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists a merchant's campaigns, which group placements across products and report combined results, so you can review campaign performance and structure.

Instructions

[Merchant] List the merchant's campaigns. A campaign groups placements, possibly of different products, and reports their combined results.

Endpoint: GET /campaigns

Changing anything here needs the PRM plan, and below it a change answers 403 ERR_UNAUTHORIZED_OPERATION; reading works on every plan, results only on PRM. A merchant that leaves PRM keeps its placements read-only, and a printed placement code then pays as its plain product with no attribution.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "payware_campaigns_list_campaigns"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
useSandboxNoUse the sandbox (the default) rather than production

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the bar is lower, but the description adds real information: the plan gating on PRM, the specific error code 403 ERR_UNAUTHORIZED_OPERATION, and the post-cancellation degradation state where placements become read-only with no attribution. Much of this concerns mutations rather than this read tool, which dilutes its relevance.

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 lead sentence is well front-loaded and the endpoint line is useful, but the second paragraph is a dense run-on about PRM plans, 403 errors, and placement codes that mostly applies to write operations, not to listing.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, an agent gets no idea what a listed campaign looks like (identifier, name, status, placement count). The plan/permission context is present, but return-shape information is missing for a read tool.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the description never mentions useSandbox or any default behavior, so it adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the merchant's campaigns') and defines the domain concept — a campaign groups placements of possibly different products and reports combined results — which an agent cannot infer from the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from payware_campaigns_get_campaign or get_campaign_stats, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Gives plan-level context (reading works on every plan, results only on PRM) but no explicit routing guidance such as 'use get_campaign for a single campaign' or 'use get_campaign_stats for metrics'. Usage is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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