get_campaignRetrieve a campaign's subject, sender, content, and target lists by campaign ID to review its setup and audience.
Get a campaign's subject, sender, content and target lists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaignId | Yes | Campaign ID (from list_campaigns) |
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 and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned payload fields, which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about behavior for a missing/invalid campaignId or about any content-size or truncation limits.
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 short sentence that leads with the verb and resource and spends its remaining words on the most useful detail (the returned fields). Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.
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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description's field enumeration is the right compensating detail. It would be fully complete with a note on what happens when the campaignId is not found or how content is returned.
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% and the single parameter already documents itself as the Campaign ID from list_campaigns. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case for a fully documented schema.
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 a campaign") and enumerates the returned fields (subject, sender, content, target lists), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It implicitly contrasts with the plural sibling list_campaigns via the singular resource, but never names that distinction 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?
The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not mention list_campaigns (the obvious way to obtain the required campaignId) or campaign_report as an alternative. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.