Set up an eBay marketing campaign by providing campaign name, marketplace ID, and optional listings, budget, and dates. Use this tool to create campaigns via the eBay Marketing API.
Setup quick campaign through the eBay Marketing API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes | Setup quick campaign request body |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.1Input schema / properties / quickCampaignRemoved value: -{
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "description": "Quick campaign configuration",
- "properties": {
- "campaignName": {
- "description": "Campaign name",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "fundingStrategy": {
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "description": "Funding strategy",
- "properties": {
- "bidPercentage": {
- "description": "Bid percentage (e.g., \"10.5\")",
- "type": "string"
- },
- "fundingModel": {
- "description": "Funding model",
- "enum": [
- "COST_PER_SALE",
- "COST_PER_CLICK"
- ],
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "fundingModel"
- ],
- "type": "object"
- },
- "marketplaceId": {
- "description": "Marketplace ID",
- "enum": [
- "EBAY_AT",
- "EBAY_AU",
- "EBAY_BE",
- "EBAY_CA",
- "EBAY_CH",
- "EBAY_CN",
- "EBAY_CZ",
- "EBAY_DE",
- "EBAY_DK",
- "EBAY_ES",
- "EBAY_FI",
- "EBAY_FR",
- "EBAY_GB",
- "EBAY_GR",
- "EBAY_HK",
- "EBAY_HU",
- "EBAY_ID",
- "EBAY_IE",
- "EBAY_IL",
- "EBAY_IN",
- "EBAY_IT",
- "EBAY_JP",
- "EBAY_MY",
- "EBAY_NL",
- "EBAY_NO",
- "EBAY_NZ",
- "EBAY_PE",
- "EBAY_PH",
- "EBAY_PL",
- "EBAY_PR",
- "EBAY_PT",
- "EBAY_RU",
- "EBAY_SE",
- "EBAY_SG",
- "EBAY_TH",
- "EBAY_TW",
- "EBAY_US",
- "EBAY_VN",
- "EBAY_ZA",
- "EBAY_HALF_US",
- "EBAY_MOTORS_US"
- ],
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "campaignName",
- "marketplaceId",
- "fundingStrategy"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}Input schema / properties / requestAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "description": "Setup quick campaign request body",
+ "properties": {
+ "campaignName": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "dailyBudget": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "currency": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "endDate": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "fundingStrategy": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "bidPercentage": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "fundingModel": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "listingIds": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "marketplaceId": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "startDate": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "campaignName",
+ "marketplaceId"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "quickCampaign"
-]New value: +[
+ "request"
+]v1.8.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only annotation, readOnlyHint=false, indicates a write operation, but the description adds no behavioral details beyond that. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens to existing campaigns. With annotations providing minimal coverage, the description should carry more weight and fails to do so.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, making it concise. It front-loads the action and resource, but lacks expansion that could justify a higher score. It is appropriately sized for what it does.
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 tool with nested objects, multiple optional fields, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse to enable correct invocation. It does not explain the quick campaign concept, prerequisites, or how the request body should be constructed. An agent would need to infer too much from the schema alone.
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?
The schema has a 100% description coverage for the top-level 'request' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about required fields, formats, or nested object semantics. It merely restates the operation without clarifying the parameter structure.
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 the verb 'Setup' and resource 'quick campaign', giving a basic sense of the operation. However, it does not explain what distinguishes a quick campaign from related tools like ebay_create_campaign, and it largely restates the tool name without defining the term. It is clear but not fully specific or well-differentiated from siblings.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ebay_create_campaign or ebay_clone_campaign. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess based on the name. 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.