campaign_detailsRetrieve a campaign template's text, channel, audience, and automation settings by template ID, with an option to skip the local cache.
One campaign template: text, channel, audience and automation settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| templateId | Yes | Template id |
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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — notably it never mentions that the `fresh` flag bypasses a local cache, which is the one genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait of this tool and is only hinted at in the schema.
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 short sentence-fragment with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently sized, though it leads with a noun phrase rather than an action verb, so the operation is not front-loaded.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a rich annotation set, the description is minimally adequate. It usefully previews the returned fields (text, channel, audience, automation settings) in the absence of an output schema, but omits error behavior for invalid ids and the cache-freshness tradeoff an agent must decide on.
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% (templateId with a regex pattern, fresh described as "Skip the local cache"), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description mentions "template" but adds no meaning about the id format, the cache behavior, or what happens when an unknown id is supplied.
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 phrase "One campaign template" identifies the resource and implies a single-record retrieval, which distinguishes it from list-style siblings like campaign_groups or campaign_schedule. However, there is no explicit verb (fetch/get/retrieve) and no direct naming of a sibling, so the agent must infer the operation from the annotations and the required templateId.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent seeing campaign_estimate, campaign_groups, campaign_schedule, and campaign_sms_balance alongside this tool gets no textual help choosing among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.