create_campaignCreates a campaign in the authenticated workspace and returns its ID, so you can save search results to it.
Create a campaign in the authenticated workspace. Use the returned campaign id with save_search_results_to_campaign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| brand | No | ||
| budget | No | ||
| hashtags | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| landing_page | No | ||
| product_name | No | ||
| content_brief | No | ||
| selling_points | No | ||
| amazon_product_urls | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description only adds that creation happens in the authenticated workspace and returns an id. It does not disclose permissions, side effects, validation behavior, defaults for optional fields, or what the created campaign contains.
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 two short sentences and is front-loaded with the core action. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing parameter and behavioral detail rather than being optimally sized for a 10-parameter mutation tool.
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 10-parameter create operation with no output schema and no schema field descriptions, the definition is substantially incomplete. It mentions only the returned id and one downstream sibling, leaving the optional campaign fields and creation semantics undocumented.
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 are 10 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides no parameter guidance at all. The agent is left with bare property names like brand, budget, hashtags, and amazon_product_urls without any explanation of meaning, format, or intended use.
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: create a campaign in the authenticated workspace. This is clear, but it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like update_campaign or list_campaigns beyond the obvious create/update/list difference.
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?
It gives a useful follow-on usage hint by telling the agent to use the returned campaign id with save_search_results_to_campaign. However, it does not explain when to create a campaign versus updating an existing one, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.