List Meta or Pinterest ad accounts accessible through this brand connection. Social connections alone do not imply ad access. Returns reconnect status when provider consent is missing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brandId | Yes | ||
| provider | Yes | ||
| connectionId | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| accounts | Yes | ||
| provider | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| fetchedAt | Yes | ||
| connections | No | ||
| connectionId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: ad access is not implied by a social connection, and a reconnect status is surfaced when provider consent is missing. However, it reads as a pure read ('List ... Returns') while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, and it never explains what non-read-only side effect that flag reflects (e.g., consent/token refresh), leaving a gap the agent cannot resolve.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the caveat and the return behavior. No filler, nothing repeated from the name or 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?
Adequate for a small list tool that has an output schema (so return shape needn't be described, and the mention of reconnect status is a bonus). But with three parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves the connectionId parameter and the brand-vs-connection scoping unexplained.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and largely does not. It effectively documents the provider enum values ('Meta or Pinterest') and gestures at brandId ('this brand connection'), but says nothing about what connectionId does, that it is optional, or how it narrows the result set versus brandId.
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 and resource ('List ... ad accounts') scoped to a brand connection and two named providers. The sentence 'Social connections alone do not imply ad access' implicitly separates it from the sibling list_connected_accounts, though it never names that sibling.
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?
Usage is implied: call it to discover ad accounts reachable through a brand connection for Meta or Pinterest. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no alternative tool named, and no note on prerequisites such as needing a completed OAuth consent beyond the passing hint about missing consent.
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.
