ppc_dayparting_analyticsGet the dayparting (time-of-day bid modifier) schedule for the profile. Returns a 7x24 grid of bid multipliers by day and hour.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful behavioral detail beyond that: the exact return shape as a 7x24 grid of bid multipliers, which is valuable since there is no output schema. It does not contradict 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 two tight sentences with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the return format sentence earns its place by compensating for the absent output schema.
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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the parameter's role via schema, and the return shape. It does not mention timezone or default behavior when profile_id is omitted across multiple profiles, but these are minor gaps for this tool's complexity.
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 single parameter profile_id is fully documented in the schema with a clear description and an optional-condition note, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond restating that the schedule is 'for the profile,' which matches the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact resource ('dayparting schedule for the profile'), then defines the returned artifact as a '7x24 grid of bid multipliers by day and hour.' This clearly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like stage_dayparting_schedule and from other PPC analytics 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 read-only nature is implied by 'Get' and the annotations, and the sibling stage_dayparting_schedule suggests the write counterpart. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.