get_marketing_campaignGet one owned marketing campaign with its brand, audience, channels, and dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | Full UUID from the matching list tool. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds value by specifying the returned data (brand, audience, channels, dates), providing context beyond annotations.
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?
Single, concise sentence of 12 words. Front-loaded with verb and resource. No unnecessary information.
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?
With output schema present, annotations covering behavioral traits, and a single well-described parameter, the description provides complete context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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 100% with parameter description 'Full UUID from the matching list tool.' Description adds subtle context by specifying 'owned' campaign, implying ownership constraint, slightly enhancing schema meaning.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' and identifies resource 'one owned marketing campaign', listing returned fields (brand, audience, channels, dates). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_marketing_campaigns and create_marketing_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?
Description implies usage for retrieving a specific campaign by ID. Context from sibling tools provides clear differentiation (list vs get). Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, but sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.