Fetch email marketing campaigns via eBay's Marketing API. Supports search, sorting, and pagination to retrieve specific campaign data.
Get email campaigns through the eBay Marketing API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | q optional endpoint parameter | |
| sort | No | sort optional endpoint parameter | |
| limit | No | limit optional endpoint parameter | |
| offset | No | offset optional endpoint parameter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.1Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Maximum number of results to return"New value: +"limit optional endpoint parameter"Input schema / properties / offset / descriptionPrevious value: -"Number of results to skip"New value: +"offset optional endpoint parameter"Input schema / properties / qAdded value: +{
+ "description": "q optional endpoint parameter",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / sortAdded value: +{
+ "description": "sort optional endpoint parameter",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.8.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds only that the call goes through the eBay Marketing API and says nothing about pagination behavior, return shape, or endpoint-specific constraints, so value beyond the annotation is minimal.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only getter, though the phrase 'through the eBay Marketing API' adds only mild context.
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 optional-parameter list call this is near-adequate: an agent can invoke it with no arguments and interpret the result. However, no output schema exists and the description does not state the return shape or explain the optional parameters, leaving small but real gaps.
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%, so the score rests at the baseline of 3. The parameter descriptions in the schema are tautological ('q optional endpoint parameter', etc.) and the tool description adds no meaning about how q, sort, limit, or offset behave.
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 action ('Get') and resource ('email campaigns'), and the plural form signals a list operation distinct from the singular ebay_get_email_campaign sibling. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like ebay_get_campaigns, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ebay_get_email_campaign (single) or ebay_get_campaigns (regular campaigns). No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are offered, so the agent must 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.