Retrieve a specific eBay marketing report task by its ID to check status, results, or errors. Identify the task outcome and access data for campaign performance analysis.
Get report task through the eBay Marketing API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reportTaskId | Yes | reportTaskId required endpoint parameter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.1Input schema / properties / reportTaskId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Report Task ID"New value: +"reportTaskId required endpoint parameter"v1.8.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—it identifies the API domain but doesn't disclose response format, pagination, or any side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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?
Single sentence with no waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple get-by-ID tool, though it could have added a bit more context without becoming verbose.
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 read tool with one parameter and readOnlyHint=true, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't mention what a report task is, what the response contains, or how it relates to the report task lifecycle (e.g., created via ebay_create_report_task). The output schema is absent, so a bit more context would help.
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 schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('report task') and identifies the API domain ('eBay Marketing API'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ebay_get_report_tasks (plural) and ebay_create_report_task, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention that this is for retrieving a single report task by ID, nor does it contrast with ebay_get_report_tasks or ebay_get_report. The context is implied by the name and parameter, but no explicit usage guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.