get a campaign by ID with stats. requires read scope.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_campaign"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | campaign ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the useful auth detail 'requires read scope' and notes that stats are included in the result, but says nothing about error behavior when the ID is unknown.
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 short sentences with the retrieval mode and prerequisite front-loaded; nothing is wasted. Brevity edges toward under-specification, particularly the undefined 'with stats'.
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?
The tool is simple: one required UUID parameter at full schema coverage, safe-read annotations, no nested objects. The description covers identification, payload hint, and scope requirement, which is sufficient; only the meaning of 'stats' remains underspecified.
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?
With a single required parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'id' as a campaign UUID. The description's 'by ID' merely echoes the schema and adds no format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (get a campaign by ID) but the appended phrase 'with stats' is vague and overlaps with siblings like get_campaign_analytics and get_campaign_usage. An agent cannot tell from this description how the returned stats differ from the dedicated analytics tool.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no comparison to alternatives such as get_campaign_analytics or list_campaign_* tools. 'Requires read scope' is a prerequisite for access, not guidance about when to select this tool.
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.