Retrieve a single drip campaign by UUID to inspect its steps, delays, send windows, and provider configuration.
Get a single drip campaign with full details — steps, delays, send windows, and provider config.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Drip campaign UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a non-mutating read and the enumeration of returned sections (steps, delays, send windows, provider config) gives real content-level context, but there is no mention of permission requirements or error behavior for an unknown ID.
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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then lists what comes back. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description's enumeration of the returned sections does much of the job an output schema would. Absent only the error/permission notes, which are minor here.
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 100% — the sole 'id' parameter is documented as a Drip campaign UUID in the schema itself. The description adds no format or sourcing guidance beyond that, so this is the expected baseline.
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 and resource (get a single drip campaign) and enumerates the contents it returns — steps, delays, send windows, provider config. The word 'single' plus the detail list clearly separates it from the sibling list_drip_campaigns.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'single' signals this is the record-retrieval counterpart to conduyt_list_drip_campaigns, but the description never says when to pick this over the list tool or what prerequisites exist (e.g., needing a valid UUID first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.