Retrieve configuration settings for a named job-hunting campaign, with secrets redacted, to review or reuse campaign details.
Get campaign configuration (secrets redacted)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign | Yes | Campaign name (e.g. "default") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that secrets are redacted in the output — but omits whether this is a read-only operation, whether permissions are required, or how redaction affects the returned config.
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?
Front-loaded verb+resource with no wasted words; the redaction caveat is placed in parentheses as a secondary detail. It is efficient, though brevity here shades into under-specification.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two confusable siblings, this description is too thin: it neither explains the returned configuration shape nor routes the agent away from read_campaign_config/list_campaigns.
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?
One parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already supplies the name plus an example ("default"). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (campaign configuration), so the basic purpose is clear. However, siblings include both read_campaign_config and list_campaigns, and the description makes no attempt to distinguish this tool from them — an agent cannot tell which of the three to pick.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to the obvious alternatives (read_campaign_config, list_campaigns). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.