get_keywordFetch one keyword 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. | |
| keyword_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation is scoped to the active Space and can be overridden with space_id. This goes beyond the annotation's simple safety hint and explains a session-dependent behavior.
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 the first sentence giving a clear, front-loaded purpose and the second adding scoping behavior. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the space-scoping nuance. It omits details like not-found behavior or return format, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the existing annotations.
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 already thoroughly describes space_id, but keyword_id has no description. The description adds minimal meaning by stating 'by id', which implies keyword_id is the identifier. With 50% schema coverage, the description does not fully compensate for the undocumented keyword_id parameter.
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 'Fetch one keyword by id' clearly identifies the action (fetch), the resource (one keyword), and the retrieval mechanism (by id), distinguishing it from list_keywords and other get_* tools. It also adds scoping context, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 states the tool is scoped to the active Space and explicitly directs users to set_active_space for switching or pass space_id to override per call. This provides clear context for use, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_keywords for fetching multiple keywords.
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.