ppc_portfoliosGet portfolio-level performance rollup. Shows each portfolio with campaign count, total spend, sales, and ACoS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | Page via next_offset to reach ALL rows. | |
| end_date | No | ||
| profile_id | No | Which advertising profile (see account_profiles). Optional when the token has exactly one. | |
| start_date | No | ||
| period_days | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the rollup content and metrics shown, which goes beyond annotations. It does not disclose pagination or date-window behavior, but the read-only annotations lower the burden.
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 tightly written sentences. The first front-loads the verb and resource, the second lists the returned fields. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition of the name/title.
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 tool with six parameters, only one-third of which are documented in the schema, and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully guide invocation. It does not explain date requirements, defaults, or pagination semantics, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.
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 description coverage is only 33% (offset and profile_id have descriptions; limit, end_date, start_date, and period_days do not). The tool description does not compensate by explaining how dates, period_days, or pagination parameters behave, so an agent cannot confidently construct a complete request.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('portfolio-level performance rollup'), and lists the exact metrics returned (campaign count, spend, sales, ACoS). The portfolio-level qualifier distinguishes it from account- or campaign-level sibling tools like ppc_account_summary and ppc_campaigns.
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 phrase 'portfolio-level performance rollup' implies when to use it: whenever portfolio-level PPC metrics are needed. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer routing from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.