get_custom_audienceRetrieve a custom audience's status, privacy-safe size range, and membership revision using its ID to verify readiness and targeting accuracy.
Retrieve audience status, privacy-preserving size ranges (e.g. under_25k, 25k_100k), and current membership_revision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| custom_audience_id | Yes | Custom audience ID (caud_*) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that size is returned only as privacy-preserving ranges rather than exact counts, and that membership_revision is part of the response. It does not cover error cases or authentication, but the read-only nature is clear from the name and retrieval framing.
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 sentence with no filler. The most important behavioral detail (privacy-preserving size ranges) is front-loaded and examples clarify the expected format.
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 getter with no output schema, the description covers the key return fields the agent needs to interpret the result. It is sufficiently complete for invoking the tool, though it does not describe not-found or error responses.
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 already fully documents the single custom_audience_id parameter and its caud_* format, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description coverage.
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 names a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('audience') and enumerates the exact data returned: status, privacy-preserving size ranges, and membership_revision. This clearly distinguishes it from related list/create/mutate audience tools.
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 intended usage is implied by the verb 'Retrieve' and the single ID parameter, but no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this over list_custom_audiences or get_audience_operation_status. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.