Retrieve email campaign audiences from eBay Marketing API. Specify emailCampaignType to filter results, with optional limit and offset for pagination.
Get audiences through the eBay Marketing API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | limit optional endpoint parameter | |
| offset | No | offset optional endpoint parameter | |
| emailCampaignType | Yes | emailCampaignType required endpoint parameter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention pagination, response format, or any constraints, so the description contributes little 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse, though it is concise partly because it omits useful context that is penalized in other dimensions.
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, no explanation of what an audience is, no guidance on valid emailCampaignType values, and no usage context, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool. The readOnly annotation and schema cover only part of the picture.
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 baseline is 3 even when the description adds no parameter details. The description itself does not explain emailCampaignType, limit, or offset, but the schema minimally documents each parameter, so the tool description does not need to compensate heavily.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get audiences through the eBay Marketing API.' It is more specific than a tautology and identifies the API context, though it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like ebay_get_email_campaigns.
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. It does not state any prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.