get-sms-campaignRetrieve an SMS campaign's status, content, sender, segment count, and schedule by its ID. Use it to inspect campaign details for review or drafting.
Get one SMS campaign: status, content, sender, segment count and schedule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The SMS 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, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the set of returned fields, not any behavioral context such as behavior for a missing/invalid id or whether the campaign is draft vs scheduled, so it is minimum-viable.
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?
One compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and a tight field enumeration; nothing is padded or repeated.
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?
For a simple single-id read with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description does the useful extra work of listing the returned fields, which compensates for the absent output schema. It could go slightly further by noting how the id is obtained or what happens if it does not exist.
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?
There is a single 'id' parameter whose schema description ('The SMS campaign id.') and UUID format/pattern are already 100% documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about the id (e.g. where to obtain it), so baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one SMS campaign') and enumerates the returned fields (status, content, sender, segment count, schedule), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. Sibling get tools differ by resource type, which the name makes clear, but the description itself never names or contrasts an alternative.
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 by 'Get one SMS campaign' — an agent infers it is for fetching a single campaign by id, most likely after list-sms-campaigns. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the list/update siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.