Retrieve a specific marketing campaign cost record by its cost ID. Use this when you need exact cost details and already know the ID.
Retrieve one campaign-cost record by cost ID. Use marketing_campaign_costs_list to search when the cost ID is unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Campaign cost ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+}v2.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the single-record retrieval semantics, but no additional behavioral context such as return shape, error behavior, or data scope beyond what the annotations and output schema 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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and lookup key are front-loaded, and the alternative-tool routing is stated in a single follow-up sentence.
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 simple one-parameter, read-only getter with an output schema and strong annotations, this description is complete. An agent can confidently invoke it when it has a known cost ID and knows to fall back to the list tool otherwise.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter, already documenting 'id' as 'Campaign cost ID'. The description reinforces that this is a lookup by cost ID, but adds no new constraints, format details, or relationship context beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Retrieve one campaign-cost record') and identifies the exact lookup key ('by cost ID'). It also distinguishes itself from the list sibling by framing itself as the point-retrieval counterpart.
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 description explicitly states when to use this tool: when the cost ID is known. It names the alternative, marketing_campaign_costs_list, and gives the exact condition for using it instead — when the cost ID is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.