Fetch a campaign folder by ID to retrieve its name, archived status, budgets, and distribution.
Get a single campaign group by ID: name, archived state, budgets and distribution (campaign group = the UI term for a folder).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Campaign group ID |
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 non-mutating call. Beyond that, the description discloses the returned payload shape (name, archived state, budgets, distribution), which genuinely matters because there is no output schema. It does not cover error behavior (e.g. what an unknown ID returns), so it is good but not complete.
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?
One tightly written sentence: the action and keying field come first, the returned fields follow as the payoff, and the parenthetical naming gloss is placed at the end where it does not interrupt the main clause. No wasted words.
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 single-resource read with one required parameter, no output schema and a readOnly annotation, the description supplies the missing piece: what fields come back. That makes it sufficient for correct invocation. A note on missing/not-found behavior would be the only remaining gap.
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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter is documented as 'Campaign group ID'. The description's only added value is reinforcing that the ID is a campaign-group/folder ID, which is a minor clarification over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantics.
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?
Specific verb (get) plus resource (a single campaign group), the keyed lookup field (by ID), and an enumerated field list. It also resolves the naming ambiguity between the API term 'campaign group' and the UI term 'folder', which is the main source of confusion here. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the sibling list_campaign_folders.
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 word 'single' combined with 'by ID' implies this is the point-fetch counterpart to kadam_adv_list_campaign_folders, so the usage context is inferable. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of sibling tools by name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.