Retrieve a specific email campaign by its ID to access its details and current status. Use this to fetch campaign data when you need to review or manage an existing campaign.
Retrieve a campaign by id (GET /campaigns/:id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The campaign id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the HTTP method (GET) and resource path, which implies a read-only lookup with no destructive side effects. It does not mention not-found behavior, response shape, or error cases, but for a simple single-resource GET this is acceptable baseline transparency.
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 sentence that front-loads the operation and includes the endpoint in parentheses. There is no filler or redundancy, and every element earns its place.
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 low-complexity: one required id parameter, no nested objects, no output schema. The description plus schema is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly and to infer that the campaign object is returned. The only gap is explicit return/error behavior, which is minor for a simple GET.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already defines id as a required string. The description adds only that the id identifies the campaign and appears in the URL path, which is minor extra context rather than substantive parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a clear resource ('campaign'), and a selection criterion ('by id'), plus the REST endpoint. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_campaigns (collection) and get_campaign_stats (analytics).
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?
Usage is implied by 'by id' and the GET /campaigns/:id endpoint: call this when you have a single campaign id and need that campaign. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as list_campaigns for multiple campaigns or get_campaign_stats for statistics, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.