get_campaignRetrieve a single campaign's node sequence, daily limits, source list, and status by providing its campaign ID. Use it to inspect or verify campaign details.
Get one campaign: its node sequence, daily limits, source list and status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a non-mutating read, and the description discloses what data comes back (node sequence, limits, source list, status), which is above a bare tautology. However it says nothing about permissions, whether the campaign must exist, or failure behavior.
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 front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and an enumerated payload; no filler. It is arguably terse given the missing usage guidance, but as written every clause 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?
For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema already documenting the return shape, the description covers purpose and payload adequately. It omits error/permission context, but the output schema removes the need to describe return values in detail.
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 single required parameter is campaign_id with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'Get one campaign' implies the id selects a single campaign, but no format, source, or lookup guidance is added beyond that implication.
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 and resource ('Get one campaign') and enumerates what it returns: node sequence, daily limits, source list and status. This clearly separates it from list_campaigns and get_campaign_stats, though it doesn't name siblings explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus get_campaign_stats, diagnose_campaign, or list_campaigns. The only implied use is fetching a single campaign by id, which is inferred rather than stated. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.