get_campaignRead your team's campaign and its settings.
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": {
"campaign_id": "<campaign_id>"
},
"name": "get_campaign"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds one piece of context beyond that: it is scoped to 'your team's' campaign, implying tenant-boundary behavior. It says nothing about what happens if the campaign_id is invalid or unknown, or what 'settings' comprises.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is under-specified rather than bloated, so brevity is not the problem here.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry the burden of telling the agent what comes back; 'campaign and its settings' is too vague given the adjacent specialized getters that each return distinct parts of a campaign. The undefined campaign_id parameter compounds the gap.
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 0% and the single parameter, campaign_id (integer), is undocumented in both schema and description. The description never mentions the identifier or where to obtain it (e.g., from list_campaigns), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 verb ('Read') and resource ('campaign and its settings'), which is clearer than the title alone. But it does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling get_campaign_* tools (get_campaign_schedule, get_campaign_audit, get_campaign_drafts, get_campaign_build_progress) or from list_campaigns, so an agent cannot infer scope from the description.
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 statement of when to use this versus list_campaigns or the more specific get_campaign_* siblings. The only implicit signal is 'read', which the annotations already convey.
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.