Retrieve a specific eBay ad by supplying its adId and campaignId, using the Marketing API to access ad details for campaign management and performance tracking.
Get ad through the eBay Marketing API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| adId | Yes | adId required endpoint parameter | |
| campaignId | Yes | campaignId required endpoint parameter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.1Input schema / properties / adId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Ad ID"New value: +"adId required endpoint parameter"Input schema / properties / campaignId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Campaign ID"New value: +"campaignId required endpoint parameter"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "campaignId",
- "adId"
-]New value: +[
+ "adId",
+ "campaignId"
+]v1.8.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already discloses the read-only nature, so the description does not need to repeat it. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as what data is returned, any authentication requirements, or pagination. It is not contradictory, but it provides no added value beyond the annotation.
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 description is a single, concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place. There is no unnecessary detail.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, one might argue the description is adequate, but the large number of siblings and the absence of an output schema mean the agent needs more context. The description does not explain what the ad represents, how it relates to the campaign, or what the return payload looks like. It is incomplete for an agent to confidently select this over other ad-related tools.
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% (both adId and campaignId have descriptions, albeit minimal). According to the rubric, a high coverage gives a baseline of 3 even if the description adds no parameter info. The description does not enrich the parameter meanings, but the baseline applies.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'ad', making the purpose obvious. However, it does not distinguish this tool from many siblings like ebay_get_ads, ebay_get_ads_by_inventory_reference, or ebay_get_ad_group. The name and description are specific enough to know it fetches a single ad, but no differentiation is provided.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over a hundred sibling tools including many ad-related ones (ebay_get_ads, ebay_get_ad_group, etc.), the agent receives no indication of which scenario calls for this specific tool. This is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.