Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
slidecold-mcp

slidecold-mcp

by slidecold
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List campaign recipients

list_campaign_recipients
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all recipients of a specific campaign and optionally filter by status to review delivery outcomes and outreach results.

Instructions

List campaign recipients. Required API key scope: campaigns:read. GET /campaigns/{id}/recipients Returns all recipients (unpaginated).

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": "list_campaign_recipients"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPath parameter `id`.
statusNoFilter by recipient status; `ALL` or omitted for all.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds the required API key scope ('campaigns:read'), the HTTP path, and the important behavioral fact that results are unpaginated, which goes beyond annotations.

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?

Front-loaded and short, with each line carrying useful operational context. Minor duplication between the title/name and the first sentence prevents a 5.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter read tool with complete schema and annotations, the description supplies scope, endpoint, and unpaginated return behavior. It could say more about recipient fields or errors, but that is minor.

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%, and both id and status are documented in the schema. The description reinforces the path parameter via the endpoint but adds no new semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 campaign recipients') and gives the exact endpoint, so the agent can identify it. It does not explicitly distinguish it from related sibling reads such as get_campaign or list_audience_members, so a 4 rather than 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?

The description implies usage by naming the resource and required scope, but it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the way to enumerate recipients for a specific campaign.

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