Retrieve metadata and download URLs for an existing Campaign Manager 360 report file without downloading the CSV content, so you can locate and access the file.
Get existing CM360 report file metadata and download URLs; does not download CSV content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| file_id | Yes | ||
| report_id | Yes | ||
| profile_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by explicitly negating a behavior the tool name invites agents to assume (no CSV download), preventing a wrong invocation. It omits auth/profile scoping and any note on URL expiry.
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?
A single compact sentence with the positive purpose front-loaded and the exclusion trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is partly under-specification given the undocumented parameters.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. But with 0% parameter description coverage and three required IDs whose nesting relationship is non-obvious, the description is too thin for an agent to construct a correct call without guessing.
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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries full responsibility — and it says nothing about profile_id, report_id, file_id, or account. The hierarchical relationship (profile containing report containing file) is the key thing an agent needs and is completely absent.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('CM360 report file metadata and download URLs'), which is meaningfully more precise than the sibling list_cm360_report_files. It also pre-empts a likely misread of the name by specifying it does not return CSV content. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the listing sibling.
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 exclusion ('does not download CSV content') implies this is the metadata step, not the retrieval step, which is useful routing information. However, it never names the alternative an agent should use to actually download content, so the when-to-use decision is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.