Retrieve a Yandex Direct campaign's details by providing its numeric campaign ID. Use this to access specific campaign information for monitoring or analysis.
Get one Direct campaign by numeric id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and the numeric id condition is stated. But it does not mention not-found behavior, auth requirements, or return value nuances. For a simple getter this is adequate but not rich.
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 short sentence with no redundant words. The key information (get one by id) is front-loaded and every word 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?
Given the low complexity—one required parameter and an output schema—the description covers the essential invocation. It doesn't discuss error cases or explicit alternatives, but the presence of an output schema and simple input makes it largely complete for an agent to select and call the tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It confirms campaign_id is a numeric identifier, which reinforces the schema's integer type and property name, but adds no meaning beyond that. The single self-explanatory parameter keeps this adequate.
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 ('Get') and resource ('one Direct campaign'), and specifies the lookup key ('numeric id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling direct_list_campaigns (list) and other direct tools that operate on 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?
The singular 'one' and 'by numeric id' imply this is for fetching a specific campaign when its id is known, which distinguishes it from list operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like direct_list_campaigns or state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.