taskGet tasks as JSONL. Limited to tasks created in the last 365 days.
| 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 aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds useful behavioral details (JSONL format, time limit) without contradicting the annotations. No side effects are mentioned, which is consistent with the read-only nature.
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 conveys the tool's purpose and key constraints without unnecessary detail.
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 provides enough context for the tool's operation, including output format and time limit. Since there is no output schema, it does not need to explain return values. Minor details like pagination are omitted but not critical for basic usage.
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 only parameter, accountIds, has a full description in the schema, so the tool description does not need to add more. The schema coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline for this dimension.
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 verb 'Get', the resource 'tasks', and the output format 'JSONL', which distinguishes it from other tools. It also specifies a time limit, making the purpose 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 provides clear context about the tool's behavior (JSONL output, 365-day limit) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. However, since no sibling tool performs a similar task-listing function, the intended use is implicit and clear.
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.