get_assetFetch one asset 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the operation is scoped to the active Space with an optional override via space_id. This is useful behavioral context beyond the read-only flag, but it does not disclose error handling or return format.
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 short sentences, with the primary action in the first and scoping behavior in the second. No fluff or redundant content.
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 getter with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: what it fetches, the space scope, and the override mechanism. It lacks explicit return-value information, but that is not necessary for a straightforward read of an asset.
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?
The schema provides a detailed description for space_id, but asset_id remains undocumented. The description's 'by id' hints at the asset_id parameter without adding format details; the parameter name itself is self-explanatory. With 50% schema coverage, the description adds limited semantic value beyond what is already in the schema.
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 opens with 'Fetch one asset by id', which uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('asset') and clearly distinguishes it from list_assets and other getters. The additional scoping mention further clarifies the exact operation.
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 explains the tool's scope ('Scoped to the active Space') and directs users to set_active_space to switch, or to pass space_id for a one-off override. This provides clear context for space handling, though it does not explicitly name an alternative for fetching multiple assets.
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.