get_decoded_ad_presetGet one decoded ads preset by id, including its full body payload (framework, agent config, etc.). Call the matching list tool first to discover ids. Free, read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Preset id. Discover ids by calling the matching list_<type>_presets first. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint. The description adds 'Free, read-only' and 'including its full body payload', which provides value beyond annotations without contradicting them.
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, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and output, second gives usage guidance and safety. Extremely concise and well-structured.
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 single-parameter, read-only tool with annotations, the description is adequate. It covers purpose, prerequisite, and safety. Cannot comment on return format due to no output schema, but overall complete enough.
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 coverage is 100%, with the schema parameter description already explaining the id purpose and discovery. The description repeats this guidance but does not add new semantic 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 clearly states the verb (Get), resource (decoded ads preset), and what it includes (full body payload with framework, agent config, etc.). This distinguishes it from similar 'get_*_preset' sibling 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?
Explicitly advises to call the matching list tool first to discover ids, and notes it is free and read-only. This provides clear context for when to use.
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.
Despite the high tool count, most tools have distinct purposes with thorough descriptions that specify when to use each. Some overlap exists among creative direction tools (call_creative_worlds vs chat_with_creative_worlds), but the descriptions clarify usage patterns.
Naming conventions are inconsistent overall: some follow verb_noun (create_powersource_url, decode_ad), others use noun_verb or compound names (adformula_intelligence, fleet_analytics_overview). However, subgroups like dispatch_* and list_*_presets maintain internal consistency.
112 tools is far beyond the typical 3-15 range for well-scoped servers. While the server covers a broad domain, the sheer number likely overwhelms agents and suggests insufficient consolidation of related operations.
The tool set covers core creative intelligence workflows: brand analysis, ad decoding, script generation, creative direction, and research. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no social media publishing tools), but the main use cases are well-supported.