Retrieve a campaign's bid limits—fixed bid cap, max multiplier, and base bid—to check what bids will pass before updating.
Bid limits of a campaign: the cap a fixed bid must stay under, the largest allowed multiplier, and the campaign bid the multiplier applies to (null when the geo bids differ). Read it before writing bids to know what will pass.
| 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 tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context by disclosing the null semantics ('null when the geo bids differ'), which prevents misinterpreting a missing value as an error. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or numeric formats, keeping it short of a 5.
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 dense sentence front-loads the resource, then the returned fields, then the usage rule. No filler; every clause carries information the agent needs.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by describing the three returned values and the null case. The only gap is that the required campaignId argument is undocumented, which is minor for a single obvious identifier on a read-only tool.
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% and the description never mentions campaignId or its expected form. The parameter name is self-evident and there is only one, which limits the practical damage, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap. Minimum-viable 3.
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 and enumerates what is inside it: the fixed-bid cap, the largest allowed multiplier, and the campaign bid the multiplier applies to. That is far more concrete than a tautology. It stops short of naming the sibling write tools it is meant to precede, so sibling differentiation is only implied via 'before writing bids.'
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?
'Read it before writing bids to know what will pass' gives a clear triggering context and implicitly routes the agent toward the bid-writing siblings (update_campaign_bid, bulk_update_bids, update_extended_bids). There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, but the sequencing guidance is actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.