get_campaignFetch a single campaign by id or path/slug. Raisely API: GET /campaigns/{campaign}. Returns { data:{...} }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign | Yes | The campaign uuid or URL path/slug. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds the HTTP endpoint (GET /campaigns/{campaign}) and the return envelope ({ data:{...} }), providing useful context beyond the safety hint. It does not mention edge cases like not-found behavior, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.
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?
The description is two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the action and target, the second provides the API path and return format. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplar of concise tool documentation.
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?
For a simple single-campaign fetch with one parameter and read-only annotation, the description covers the essential elements: what it does, the identifier, the API endpoint, and the return structure. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly states the return envelope, completing the picture for an agent.
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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents the 'campaign' parameter. The description repeats the same information ('by id or path/slug') without adding any new semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('single campaign') and enumerates the identifier types (id or path/slug). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_campaigns and get_donation, meeting the highest bar for purpose clarity.
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?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for a single campaign rather than a collection, which implies the appropriate use case. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'single' qualifier and mention of id/path make the intended usage evident without confusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool is clearly scoped to a specific resource and action. The get_/list_/create_/update_ prefixes distinguish reads from mutations, and the convenience listers are explicitly labeled, so there is no real overlap or confusion.
Tool names largely follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, update_). The only outlier is raisely_request, which is a generic escape hatch but breaks the pattern slightly.
With 23 tools, the server is on the heavy side. While each tool maps to a distinct API endpoint, several convenience wrappers (list_campaign_donations, list_user_donations) add redundancy without significantly expanding functionality.
The tool surface is heavily read-oriented. Many core resources like campaigns, subscriptions, posts, and orders lack create/update/delete operations, and the read-only raisely_request cannot fill these gaps, leaving agents unable to perform common management tasks.