list_campaignsAd campaigns across connected platforms with per-campaign performance (spend, conversions, ROAS, status) for a window. Requires the campaigns module.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range | No | Reporting window: 7d, 28d (default) or 90d. | |
| platform | No | Filter by platform, e.g. meta, google-ads, amazon-ads. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds the prerequisite that the campaigns module must be enabled, which is useful context. It does not disclose other behaviors like pagination or error handling, but annotations cover the main safety profile.
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 sentence that packs in the resource, platform scope, performance metrics, and module requirement. No wasted words, front-loaded with the essential action.
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 simple list tool with two optional parameters, no required parameters, an existing output schema, and strong annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It states what is returned, the platform coverage, and the module prerequisite, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke.
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 100%, with both 'range' and 'platform' documented in the schema. The description mentions 'for a window' which vaguely maps to the range parameter, but adds no specificity beyond the schema. This is the baseline for high coverage.
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 lists ad campaigns across connected platforms and includes per-campaign performance metrics (spend, conversions, ROAS, status). This is a specific verb+resource+scope, distinguishing it from aggregated summary tools like get_marketing_summary.
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 context that it requires the campaigns module and covers connected platforms, implying when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to other listing/summary tools.
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 target distinct data points (e.g., get_analytics_summary vs get_brand_score). However, 'search' and 'search_catalog' have overlapping functionality and could cause confusion, and 'fetch' is a helper tied to 'search', adding minor ambiguity.
The majority use consistent verb_noun snake_case (e.g., get_inventory, list_stores). Exceptions like 'fetch' and 'search' (without object) break the pattern, but they are few.
43 tools is excessive for a data-retrieval-only API. Many get_* and search_* tools could be consolidated (e.g., search_catalog, search_inventory, search_orders are similar). The large number will overwhelm an agent.
The tool set is entirely read-only (get, search, list, fetch). There are no create, update, or delete tools, which is a critical gap for managing e-commerce operations. Agents can only view data, not act on it.