Retrieve a Listmonk campaign by ID to inspect its name, subject, status, type, template, target lists, send progress, view and click counts, and full body.
Get one campaign by ID: name, subject, status, type, template, target lists, send progress, view and click counts, and the full body (which can be large).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | Campaign ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds useful payload context (send progress, view/click counts, full body that may be large), but says nothing about behavior for a missing/invalid ID or response shape beyond field names.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and retrieval key, then a compact field list. The size caveat is a single parenthetical and every element earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it enumerates the key fields and flags that the body is large. Only error/missing-campaign behavior is left uncovered, which is minor for a read-only lookup.
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?
There is a single parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema documenting campaign_id (numeric, > 0). The description only restates 'by ID', adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 and resource ('Get one campaign by ID') and enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it from the sibling list tool get_campaigns and from get_campaign_preview by including the full body. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings.
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: 'Get one campaign by ID' plus the parenthetical that the body 'can be large' hints that get_campaign_preview is the lighter alternative, but no alternative is named and no when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.