Read one campaign. A running campaign that can't call anyone now has waiting ({code, message, fix, since}), e.g. outside the calling hours or no processing region; it starts again by itself once that is fixed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| workspaceId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context about the `waiting` state, including its fields, examples, and automatic resumption, but omits details about authentication, error behavior, and the overall shape of the returned campaign.
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 front-loaded with the core action and remains brief. The second sentence is dense but earns its place by explaining the `waiting` state.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain more about the returned campaign and the two required parameters. It only covers the `waiting` field, leaving most of the tool's contract implicit.
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 0%, so the description should compensate. It does not mention either parameter; only 'campaign' loosely implies that `id` identifies the campaign, while `workspaceId` remains completely undocumented.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read one campaign.' This clearly distinguishes it from list-style siblings like campaigns_list, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as campaigns_list, campaigns_preview, or mutation siblings. The description does not mention prerequisites or conditions for invocation.
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.