get-push-campaignRetrieve one push campaign by ID to inspect its status, notification content, targeting, and schedule.
Get one push campaign: status, notification content, targeting and schedule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The push campaign id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the set of fields returned, not behavioral traits like error behavior or permission requirements, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the field enumeration second. No filler, no repetition of the title, nothing to trim.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully names what the response contains (status, content, targeting, schedule), and annotations cover safety. For a one-parameter read tool this is largely complete, though it omits anything about failure modes or lookup scope.
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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents it as a UUID push campaign id. The description adds no format, constraint or meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline at full coverage.
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 ('Get') and resource ('one push campaign') and enumerates the returned facets (status, notification content, targeting, schedule). The resource name cleanly separates it from get-email-campaign, get-sms-campaign and get-in-app-campaign, though it never disambiguates against the nearby get-push-notification sibling.
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 only implied: the phrase 'one push campaign' hints that this is the single-item counterpart to list-push-campaigns. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no stated alternative for retrieving push notification data instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.