get_time_targetingRetrieve a campaign's time targeting settings: time zone, weekday ad scheduling, hourly bid adjustments, and holiday configuration. Use it to audit or verify when ads run.
Временной таргетинг кампании: часовой пояс, часы показов по дням недели, почасовые коэффициенты и настройка праздников.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | ID кампании, десятичная строка |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Does 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 no behavioral context beyond that — no mention of permissions, rate limits, or response shape — but it does scope what the resource contains, which is mild added value.
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?
A single compact sentence with the resource stated first and no filler. It is well front-loaded, though as a fragment it stops short of fully specifying the tool's behavior.
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, the description usefully enumerates the fields the resource exposes (time zone, weekday hours, hourly coefficients, holidays), effectively standing in for a return-value description. For a one-parameter read-only getter this is close to complete; only the retrieval framing is missing.
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% with a single documented campaign_id parameter (pattern and format included), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 names a specific resource (campaign time targeting) and enumerates its components: time zone, display hours per weekday, hourly coefficients, and holiday settings. Combined with the get_ prefix it is distinguishable from the sibling set_time_targeting, but the description never states the retrieval action explicitly — it is a noun phrase describing the resource rather than a verb+resource statement.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus set_time_targeting or the other campaign getters, and no prerequisites (e.g. needing campaign_id to exist) are mentioned. The read-only nature must be inferred entirely from the name and annotations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.