get_brake_statusRead the Emergency Brake state on its own: whether it is armed, whether it is engaged right now, the events it has recorded (each with the budget crossed, the spend measured, and the exact campaigns paused), and which levels the user has overruled for the current month. Cheap to poll, no side effects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds value by explicitly stating 'no side effects' and 'cheap to poll', which informs the agent that frequent calls are safe. It also details the specific data returned (events with budget crossed, spend measured, campaigns paused), giving a clear behavioral picture beyond the annotation.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Read the Emergency Brake state on its own') and packs additional detail into each clause without redundancy. Every piece of information serves a purpose, making it concise yet comprehensive.
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?
Despite the lack of an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: armed status, engagement status, recorded events with details, and overridden levels. It also adds operational context ('cheap to poll, no side effects'). For a simple read-only tool with no inputs, this is complete.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. Per the calibration guide, a tool with 0 params receives a baseline of 4. The description appropriately focuses on the output rather than inputs.
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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource as the Emergency Brake state, enumerating exactly what it returns (armed, engaged, events, overrides). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'release_brake', which is an action 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 phrase 'on its own' indicates this is a standalone status-check tool, and 'Cheap to poll, no side effects' implies it can be called frequently for monitoring. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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 follow a clear resource+action pattern (get_ad, update_ad, delete_ad), so entity-level tools are easy to distinguish. The main ambiguity is among reporting/status tools like get_conversion_status, get_conversion_health, get_conversion_report, and account_summary vs. get_performance_stats, which could tempt misselection without reading descriptions.
Naming is highly consistent: nearly every resource has create_/get_/update_/delete_/list_ variants, with predictable special verbs like set_, trigger_, preview_, and upload_. Minor exceptions like account_summary or get_angle_readout still follow the same readable verb-driven style.
83 tools is an extreme surface for an MCP server, even one covering ad management. Most entities have full CRUD plus many custom readouts and report variants, which creates context bloat and makes tool selection unnecessarily expensive for the agent.
The platform covers the full campaign lifecycle: campaigns, ad groups, ads, keywords, assets, business/creative planes, conversion actions, sync, budget, and targeting are all represented. Minor gaps exist—conversion sources have create/list but no get/update/delete, and there is no explicit way to update or remove a conversion source—but these can be worked around.