get_campaignFetch a specific OpenAI Ads campaign using its campaign ID to access its configuration and performance data, enabling quick review and auditing of ad campaigns.
Fetch a single OpenAI Ads campaign by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | The campaign ID (e.g. cmpn_101) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and 'Fetch' unambiguously signals a read-only operation with no mutation. It does not disclose error behavior or auth requirements, but for a simple get-by-ID tool the core behavior is transparent.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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, no-nested-object getter with no output schema, the description plus schema is nearly complete. It lacks explicit return/error details, but 'fetch a campaign' reasonably implies returning the campaign object.
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%, so the schema already documents campaign_id with an example. The description adds only that the campaign is fetched by its ID, aligning with but not enriching the schema's parameter meaning.
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 verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('OpenAI Ads campaign'), and the scope ('single ... by its ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_campaigns or update_campaign.
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 phrase 'single ... by its ID' establishes a clear usage condition: use this when you need exactly one campaign and have its ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_campaigns for bulk needs, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.