creatives_get
Get media
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selection_key | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | ||
| retryable | No | ||
| support_ref | No |
Get media
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selection_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | ||
| retryable | No | ||
| support_ref | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / else / properties / download_availableAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / else / properties / download_expires_atAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "null",
+ "string"
+ ]
+}Output schema / else / properties / download_urlAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "null",
+ "string"
+ ]
+}Output schema / else / properties / thumbnail_urlAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "null",
+ "string"
+ ]
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the word 'Get'. It does not mention what is returned, whether the media is loaded remotely, or any side effects or prerequisites.
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?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It front-loads nothing useful and leaves the only parameter and usage semantics entirely unexplained.
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?
While the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description is too sparse to support correct invocation. It fails to clarify what media is retrieved, how selection_key filters results, or how this differs from sibling list tools.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, selection_key, and the description does not mention it at all. The agent is given no hint about what selection_key means, its format, or when it is needed.
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 'Get media' names a verb and a resource, but not with enough specificity to distinguish it from creatives_list or other media-related tools. It does not state whether it fetches a single creative, a set, or by what criteria.
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 guidance is provided on when to use creatives_get versus creatives_list, creatives_list_folders, or other read tools. The description gives no context about intended use or selection logic.
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.