Get per-rule bid autorule slices for a campaign, so you can tell a manually set bid apart from one an autorule keeps rewriting.
Slices the campaign's bid autorules act on, one entry per rule. Use it to tell apart a bid you set by hand from one an autorule keeps rewriting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaignId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds cardinality context ('one entry per rule'), which hints at result shape, but says nothing about scoping, pagination, permissions, or failure behavior beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Two tight sentences: the first delivers the what, the second the why. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the capability statement is front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema, the description should sketch the return shape; 'one entry per rule' is the only hint, and what a slice entry actually contains (bid value, rule identity, hand-set vs. rule-managed flag) is left unstated. For a simple read-only, one-parameter tool this is adequate but not fully complete.
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?
There is a single required parameter (campaignId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It implicitly establishes campaign scoping ('the campaign's bid'), which makes the parameter's meaning inferable, but never mentions the argument by name, type, or accepted form.
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 resource ('the campaign's bid [that] autorules act on') and the output granularity ('one entry per rule'), which goes beyond the tautological title 'Campaign autorule slices'. The phrasing is slightly awkward and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from lookalike siblings such as get_campaign_bid_restrictions or list_extended_bids, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
'Use it to tell apart a bid you set by hand from one an autorule keeps rewriting' gives a concrete decision context for reaching for this tool. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it (e.g., when you just want rule definitions from list_autorules), so no exclusion guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.