account_labelGet account labels as JSONL, one row per account-label assignment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountIds | No | Optional TrueClicks account ids to limit the result to (the numeric Id field from the account listing). Omit to return all accounts. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / accountIds / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional account IDs to limit the result to. Omit to return all accounts."New value: +"Optional TrueClicks account ids to limit the result to (the numeric Id field from the account listing). Omit to return all accounts."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the output format (JSONL) and row semantics (one per assignment), which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not mention potential edge cases like large result sets, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.
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, concise sentence that directly states the purpose and output format. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
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?
The description is sufficient for a simple list tool, but it does not specify the exact fields present in each row (e.g., account ID, label name). This minor gap is acceptable given the typical expectation of such a tool, but a bit more detail would make it fully 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 sole parameter 'accountIds' is fully documented in the schema description, including its optionality, meaning, and default behavior. The reference to the 'numeric Id field' from the account listing adds helpful context.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves account labels as JSONL, with a specific resource (account labels) and action (Get). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'account' which likely lists accounts, and 'account_label' is unambiguous.
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 usage for retrieving account-label assignments, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over others. However, given the sibling set, the purpose is fairly evident, so it is not misleading.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, but the audit and report tools (e.g., audit_rule_output_table vs audit_rule_output_table_historical vs audit_rule_result vs audit_rule_result_campaign) are closely related and rely on detailed descriptions to differentiate.
Naming is generally consistent with snake_case and domain-prefixed groups (google_ads_*, ms_ads_*, perfmon_*), though a few tools are bare nouns (account, task, user) rather than verb-led, which slightly deviates from the dominant pattern.
23 tools is on the higher end but justified for a platform covering multiple ad platforms, audit reports, alerts, and user management; it remains navigable with clear groupings.
The tool set comprehensively covers account enumeration, audit results, report execution for major ad platforms, perfmon alerts, pacing targets, tasks, and users. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no create/update/modify operations), but the core analytics and monitoring surface is well covered.