Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
slidecold-mcp

slidecold-mcp

by slidecold
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get a campaign

get_campaign
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a campaign's details by ID to review its settings and status before managing Instagram cold-DM outreach. Inspect individual campaigns for accurate targeting and reporting.

Instructions

Get a campaign. Required API key scope: campaigns:read. GET /campaigns/{id}

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPath parameter `id`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — the required API key scope campaigns:read — but says nothing about error behavior, rate limits, or what a missing ID yields.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three short lines, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scope and endpoint — nothing redundant. It is arguably over-terse rather than bloated, which is the better failure mode here.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient; the auth scope is a helpful addition. Still missing is any note on return shape or not-found handling, which matters since there is no output schema.

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% for the single id parameter, so the schema carries the burden. The description only implies that id is a path parameter via the endpoint string and adds no format or validation meaning.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Get a campaign" restates the tool name and title, but the added "GET /campaigns/{id}" endpoint line confirms it retrieves one campaign by ID rather than a list. It offers no explicit differentiation from siblings like list_campaigns, get_campaign_stats, or get_campaign.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the single-resource fetch versus list_campaigns or get_campaign_stats, and nothing states what to do if the campaign is missing.

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