get usage limits and current counts for a campaign. 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_usage"
}
}| 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 covered. The description adds the read-scope auth requirement, which is real value beyond annotations, but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or what the returned limits/counts represent.
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 no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite. The lowercase, fragmentary phrasing is efficient though slightly informal.
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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is close to sufficient. However, with no output schema, the agent gets no hint about what shape 'limits and current counts' takes or which quotas are reported.
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% and the single id parameter is documented as 'campaign ID' with uuid format. The description's 'for a campaign' merely restates that, adding no new meaning beyond the schema.
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: retrieve usage limits and current counts for a campaign. The 'for a campaign' scoping distinguishes it from family siblings like get_ai_usage and get_contact_usage, though those siblings are never named.
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 only guidance is the prerequisite 'requires read scope,' which is a useful condition. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_usage or get_campaign_analytics, so the usage context is only implied.
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.