Get full details of a specific MailerCloud campaign by ID, including performance metrics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | MailerCloud API key | |
| campaign_id | Yes | Campaign ID,required |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context that the response contains full details including performance metrics, which is valuable since no output schema exists. It does not describe error handling, but the annotations lower the burden.
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 one concise sentence with no filler. The primary verb, resource, and qualifiers are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 straightforward single-campaign retrieval with one required parameter and read-only annotations, this description provides adequate context for correct invocation. The mention of full details and performance metrics gives a sense of the output even without an output schema; listing specific fields might improve it, but it is not essential.
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%, as both api_key and campaign_id have explicit descriptions. The description only reinforces that campaign_id identifies the campaign by ID and adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly identifies the operation ('Get'), the resource ('a specific MailerCloud campaign'), the access pattern ('by ID'), and the key content ('including performance metrics'), which differentiates it from list_campaigns and analysis-oriented siblings like analyze_campaign.
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 implies when to use the tool (when a campaign ID is known and full details are needed) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. No guidance such as 'for listing campaigns use list_campaigns' or 'for performance analysis use analyze_campaign.'
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.
Tool purposes are largely distinct, with clear separation between CRUD operations, analytics, and deliverability tools. Some overlap exists between get_campaign, analyze_campaign, and campaign_health_dashboard, but descriptions clarify scope sufficiently.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_, get_, create_, update_, delete_, send_). Minor exceptions like campaign_health_dashboard and engagement_funnel are descriptive but break the pattern.
With 47 tools, this is a very large surface area. While the variety reflects the breadth of email marketing operations, the count exceeds what is typically manageable and suggests potential redundancy or over-scoping.
The tool set covers most core workflows: contact/list management, campaign lifecycle, templates, webhooks, analytics, and transactional email. Minor gaps like no delete for templates or tags are acceptable but not fatal.
