get_campaignOne campaign in full: which template and landing page it used, which audience and sending domain, its schedule, and its funnel with rates. Accepts either the campaign id or its name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign | Yes | Campaign id, or the campaign name as shown in Fallax. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what fields are returned and that either id or name can be used, but it does not describe error behavior, missing-campaign handling, or response format. This is acceptable given the annotations but not deeply transparent.
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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads what 'full' means, and the second covers the input flexibility. Every clause adds value.
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, single-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It lists the return contents and input options. It does not mention pagination or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotation coverage, nothing critical is missing.
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%, and the parameter description already states 'Campaign id, or the campaign name as shown in Fallax.' The tool description repeats this input flexibility without adding new semantic meaning, so the schema carries the full weight. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clear verb+resource ('get campaign') and specifies exactly what full campaign information is returned: template, landing page, audience, sending domain, schedule, and funnel rates. This distinguishes it from list_campaigns and other sibling tools.
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 phrase 'One campaign in full' clearly implies it is for fetching a single campaign rather than listing multiple campaigns, which is an implicit usage cue. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.
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.