tiktok_adLibrary_ad_getGet a single TikTok Ad Library or Top Ads creative by ad id or public ad URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Public TikTok Ad Library or Top Ads detail URL for the ad. | |
| adId | No | TikTok Ad Library or Top Ads ad id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries little burden for safety disclosure. It adds minimal extra context (e.g., that it returns a 'creative') but doesn't describe response format or any side-effect nuances. Since annotations cover the main behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.
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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and the two access methods, remaining highly readable and scannable.
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 get tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it tells you what it does, what inputs it accepts, and the fact that it returns a single creative. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that at least one of the two parameters is expected (the schema lists both as optional), but the phrase 'by ad id or public ad URL' implies that need. This is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly, so a 4 is warranted.
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?
Both parameters are fully described in the schema (coverage 100%), so the description adds little beyond reinforcing that either id or URL can be used. The schema itself documents each parameter clearly, including the URL type and max lengths. The description does not clarify constraints like which parameter to prefer or whether both are allowed simultaneously, but at 100% schema coverage a baseline of 3 is correct.
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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single TikTok Ad Library or Top Ads creative'), and the two allowed identifiers ('by ad id or public ad URL'). This distinguishes it from the sibling search tool (tiktok_adLibrary_ads_search_get) and similar tools on other platforms.
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 when you already have an ad id or public URL, but it does not explicitly say 'use search first if you lack these identifiers' or name the alternative. The sibling list includes a search tool, and the wording 'single' vs. 'search' provides clear context, but no explicit exclusions make it a solid 4 rather than 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.
Each tool is clearly scoped to a specific platform and action (e.g., facebook_post_get vs instagram_post_get). Descriptions explicitly differentiate similar tools across platforms, and within-a-platform tools like tiktok_search_videos_list vs tiktok_search_hashtag_list have clear disambiguation notes.
All 167 tools follow a strict `platform_resource_action` pattern (e.g., youtube_video_comments_list). No mixing of styles—snake_case throughout, with consistent verb ordering (get, list, search, etc.).
The server has 167 tools, which is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the broad multi-platform scope justifies many tools, this extreme number makes the tool surface overwhelming and difficult for an agent to navigate efficiently.
The tool set covers a wide range of platforms and operations including profile retrieval, post/video fetching, comments, search, transcripts, and ad library access. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Facebook events or LinkedIn messaging), but the surface is comprehensive for a read-only data aggregation use case.