get_campaignRetrieve campaign settings and current status by passing a campaign ID, so you can verify configuration and monitor progress before making changes.
Read campaign settings and status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare this is a safe, read-only, open-world operation. The description only restates the read action and gives a vague data scope; it does not add meaningful behavioral context such as not-found behavior, permissions, or response characteristics.
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 single sentence is concise, front-loaded, and free of filler. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though the content is under-specified for the tool's needs.
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 and no parameter documentation, the description should do more to explain what 'settings and status' includes and how the campaign_id identifies the target. It leaves the agent with too little context for reliable invocation.
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 description does not mention campaign_id at all, despite schema description coverage being 0%. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 read operation on a campaign and indicates the data scope as settings and status. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as list_campaigns or the more specific get_campaign_* tools.
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: retrieve one campaign's settings and status. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of list_campaigns, update_campaign, or subresource tools like get_campaign_performance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.