ppc_creativesSB ad creatives at ad grain (headline, brand logo, custom images, video asset ids, ASINs, landing page, creative status) plus SD creatives; include_assets=true adds the asset-library inventory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile_id | No | Which advertising profile (see account_profiles). Optional when the token has exactly one. | |
| campaign_id | No | ||
| creative_type | No | ||
| include_assets | No |
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 establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, lowering the burden. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the ad-grain fields returned and the effect of include_assets=true on asset-library inventory.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with tool scope and followed by a concrete flag behavior; no filler. The parenthetical field list is dense but compact enough to stay readable.
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 read-only retrieval tool, the description conveys the data grain, included fields, and the optional include_assets behavior, which is enough to call it correctly. It does not detail response shape, pagination, or default behavior when include_assets is absent, but annotations cover the safety profile and no output schema is declared.
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?
The description directly explains include_assets and, by listing SB and SD creatives, hints at creative_type values. profile_id already has a schema description, but campaign_id and creative_type remain undocumented in both schema and description, leaving roughly half the parameters without added 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 identifies the tool as returning SB ad creatives at ad grain with a detailed field list, plus SD creatives, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ppc_campaigns and ppc_ad_groups. However, it omits an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns', relying on title and fragmentary phrasing.
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 implies this is the creative-level tool ('SB ad creatives at ad grain... plus SD creatives') and notes the include_assets toggle, giving an agent context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so usage routing depends on inference from the tool name and sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.