Retrieve detailed information for a single Google Ads campaign by supplying the customer ID and campaign ID.
Get details for a single campaign.
Args: customer_id: Google Ads customer ID. campaign_id: The campaign ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| customer_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already communicate the safe read-only nature, and the description does not contradict them. It adds only the single-campaign scoping, but does not describe return shape, error behavior, or any special operational quirks, so it provides modest value beyond the annotations.
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 short and front-loaded with the purpose statement, followed by a compact Args section. There is no filler or redundant prose, though the content is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than being a model of concise completeness.
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 two-parameter read-only getter, the description is minimally viable, but gaps remain. It does not describe what fields 'details' includes, returns no output schema, and gives no information about failure modes or how this differs from performance-reporting campaign tools. The annotations cover safety, but the description alone is only barely adequate.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides only minimal restatements—'Google Ads customer ID' and 'the campaign ID'—which mostly echo the property names and do not explain ID formats, validity rules, or how to obtain the values. Some domain context is added, but it is not enough to fully support correct invocation.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get details for a single campaign.' It clearly indicates the tool returns information about one campaign, which distinguishes it from list-style tools, though it does not explicitly call out or contrast with sibling tools like get_campaign_performance.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_campaigns or get_campaign_performance. The only implied context is that it targets a single campaign, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.