List the images/videos inside a PUBLIC Google Drive folder (must be shared as 'Anyone with the link'). Returns each file's name and a Drive URL usable directly as imageUrl in bulk_create_campaigns. Perfect for 'create one campaign per image in this folder'. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder_url | Yes | Google Drive folder link (or bare folder ID) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the folder must be public and returns file name and Drive URL. No contradictions. It could add error handling for non-public folders, but overall adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
The description is three sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and each sentence adds value: what it does, the constraint, and the typical use case.
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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the public requirement, return format, and integration with another tool. No gaps are apparent.
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 a basic description. The tool description adds the requirement that the folder must be public, which is not in the schema. This extra context helps the agent understand constraints.
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 specifies a clear verb ('List') and resource ('images/videos inside a PUBLIC Google Drive folder'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing its read-only nature and linking to bulk_create_campaigns, which is a separate creation tool.
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 provides clear context: the folder must be public and shared as 'Anyone with the link', and it's perfect for creating one campaign per image. It implicitly suggests using this before bulk_create_campaigns, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but creation tools (create_campaign, bulk_create_campaigns, create_structured, add_ad_to_adset) overlap in scope, potentially causing misselection. However, descriptions clarify differences.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as 'bulk_create_campaigns', 'get_insights', 'pause_campaigns'. No mixing of conventions.
23 tools cover the Meta Ads domain well, but the count is slightly high. Most tools are justified, though some could be merged (e.g., creation variants).
Core CRUD is covered for campaigns and ads, but there is no tool to create an ad set independently (only via create_structured). Creative editing and standalone ad set creation are missing, leaving notable gaps.