automation_daypartingDayparting, READ-ONLY: action=list shows schedules + assignments (mutations live in stage_dayparting_schedule).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Which read to run; every action is read-only and runs immediately. | |
| params | No | Action-specific fields (see description). | |
| profile_id | No | Which advertising profile (see account_profiles). Optional when the token has exactly one. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the list returns schedules and assignments and that mutations are handled elsewhere. This is sufficient for a simple read-only operation, though it does not go deep into output behavior or auth requirements.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence contains the tool's purpose, read-only nature, required action, and the sibling for mutations. 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?
For a single-action read-only tool with readOnlyHint=true, this is nearly complete. The only gap is that action-specific params are referenced in the schema but never concretely specified in the description, though the 'list' action appears self-sufficient.
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 high and action/profile_id are already described in the schema. However, the params object says 'see description' while the tool description never enumerates action-specific fields. The description adds no real parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 ('shows'), a specific resource ('schedules + assignments'), and explicitly contrasts itself with the mutation sibling stage_dayparting_schedule. It is immediately clear what this tool does and what it does not do.
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 explicitly says READ-ONLY, specifies action=list for reads, and directs mutations to stage_dayparting_schedule. This gives the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.