Get full details and locale/creative variations for one specific ad (use adId from get_competitor_ads). Shows every language variant, creative asset URLs, and icon variations. Useful to see how a competitor localizes a winning ad.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| adId | Yes | ||
| datePreset | No | LAST_YEAR |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the output: every language variant, creative asset URLs, and icon variations. This goes beyond annotations, but does not mention any other behavioral traits like rate limits or result size.
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?
Two sentences: first states the primary function, second provides a concrete use case. No redundant or vague wording. Information is front-loaded and each sentence adds value.
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 tool's simplicity (2 params, one required), rich annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description covers the purpose, output contents, and links to the sibling tool. However, it omits explanation of the datePreset parameter, which would improve completeness for agents needing time-range filtering.
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 add meaning. It clarifies that adId comes from get_competitor_ads, but does not explain the datePreset parameter (only an enum and default in schema). The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, especially for the optional but functional datePreset.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves full details including locale/creative variations for one specific ad. It specifies using adId from get_competitor_ads, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_competitor_ads (which lists ads) and search 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 description advises using the adId from get_competitor_ads and provides a use case (seeing how a competitor localizes an ad). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the implied source of adId.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. The status checkers (assemble_status, clips_status) are differentiated by the job type they monitor. Memory tools (index, note, recall) are distinct operations. Competitor ad tools (search, get ads, get details) and video generation pipeline (avatar, clips, assembly) are well-separated.
All tools use consistent snake_case with a verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (e.g., assemble_video, get_competitor_ads, memory_index). No mixing of conventions, making the tool names predictable and easy to understand.
With 17 tools, the server covers account management, memory, competitor research, and video generation without being overwhelming. The count is well-scoped for its functionality, neither too sparse nor too heavy.
The toolset covers the core workflows: account setup (sign_up, upgrade, whoami), memory (CRUD), competitor analysis (search, get ads, details), and video ad creation (avatar, clips, assembly). Minor gaps like lacking a delete memory tool are acceptable given the domain focus.
