Metadata MCP Connector

Get Budget Group

get_budget_group

Read-only

Get configuration and settings for a budget group (NOT performance data).

            KEYWORDS: budget, group, settings, configuration, details, allocation, campaigns

            WHEN TO USE:
            - "Show me the [group name] budget group settings/configuration"
            - "What campaigns are in the [group name] budget group?"
            - "What's the budget allocation for [group name]?"
            - Getting budget group metadata without performance metrics

            WHEN NOT TO USE:
            - Performance questions (spend, CPL, leads, conversions) → use budget_group_performance instead
            - Questions like "how did X perform" or "total spend for X" → use budget_group_performance instead

            NOTE: If the user is asking about performance metrics (spend, leads, CPL, etc.),
            use budget_group_performance directly - it accepts the name and handles ID lookup internally.

            Matches the full stored name across search pages, ignoring letter case and outer whitespace, whether switched on or off. Refuses ambiguous names instead of selecting a different group. Returns complete budget group information including campaigns, budget allocation, and settings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	The full stored name of the budget group, ignoring letter case and outer whitespace. Example: 'Brand'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 5, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / name / description

Previous value: -"The name of the budget group to search for. Example: 'Brand'"New value: +"The full stored name of the budget group, ignoring letter case and outer whitespace. Example: 'Brand'"

First observedSep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds real behavioral context the schema cannot: case-insensitive/whitespace-trimmed full-name matching across search pages, refusal on ambiguous names rather than substituting a group, and what the response contains. It omits auth/permission or rate-limit context, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the single most important disambiguation ('NOT performance data') and uses clear headed sections. The KEYWORDS line is largely redundant with the surrounding prose and costs some density, keeping it out of the top score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back (campaigns, budget allocation, settings) and how name resolution behaves on ambiguity. Combined with the routing guidance, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter at 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents the name field, its whitespace/case tolerance, and an example. The description restates the same matching rule rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get configuration and settings for a budget group') and immediately disqualifies the sibling scope with '(NOT performance data)'. An agent can distinguish it from budget_group_performance without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit WHEN TO USE example utterances and a WHEN NOT TO USE section that names the alternative tool (budget_group_performance) twice with concrete triggers ('how did X perform', 'total spend for X'). Nothing is left to inference, and it even notes the sibling handles ID lookup itself.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Metadata MCP Connector tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?