get_angleFetch one angle by id. Scoped to the active Space — see set_active_space to switch, or pass space_id to override for this one call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| angle_id | Yes | ||
| space_id | No | Override the active Space for this one call. Defaults to the active Space set via set_active_space (or GROWOMAT_SPACE_ID on the server). Pass to read/write a different Space without changing the session binding. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is scoped to the active Space, the Space can be overridden per-call, and set_active_space changes that binding. No contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the Space behavior is explained efficiently.
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 read-one-by-id tool with annotations indicating read-only behavior, this definition covers the key invocation concerns: which id to pass, Space scoping, and per-call override. No output schema is required to make the call correctly.
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 coverage is 50%. The space_id parameter already has a thorough schema description, and the prose reinforces its override behavior. The angle_id parameter is only implied by 'by id' but is not separately described; this is adequate for a simple id lookup.
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 and resource: 'Fetch one angle by id.' This distinguishes it from list_ and other get_ helpers such as get_angle_preflight and get_angle_readout, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.
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 clearly explains the active Space scoping and tells the agent to use set_active_space to switch, or pass space_id to override for the call. It does not explicitly contrast with list_angles or related getters, but the by-id framing makes the basic usage obvious.
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.
Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern (get_ad, update_ad, delete_ad), so entity-level tools are easy to distinguish. The main ambiguity is among reporting/status tools like get_conversion_status, get_conversion_health, get_conversion_report, and account_summary vs. get_performance_stats, which could tempt misselection without reading descriptions.
Naming is highly consistent: nearly every resource has create_/get_/update_/delete_/list_ variants, with predictable special verbs like set_, trigger_, preview_, and upload_. Minor exceptions like account_summary or get_angle_readout still follow the same readable verb-driven style.
83 tools is an extreme surface for an MCP server, even one covering ad management. Most entities have full CRUD plus many custom readouts and report variants, which creates context bloat and makes tool selection unnecessarily expensive for the agent.
The platform covers the full campaign lifecycle: campaigns, ad groups, ads, keywords, assets, business/creative planes, conversion actions, sync, budget, and targeting are all represented. Minor gaps exist—conversion sources have create/list but no get/update/delete, and there is no explicit way to update or remove a conversion source—but these can be worked around.