Choose creatives from the caller's library, newest first
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| max_select | No | ||
| folder_name | No | ||
| connection_context | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | ||
| retryable | No | ||
| support_ref | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / then / properties / categoryAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / then / properties / expectedAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / then / properties / failure_kindAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / then / properties / responsibility_hintAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / then / properties / routeAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / then / properties / user_visibleAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / connection_contextAdded value: +{
+ "pattern": "^mctx_v1_[0-9a-f]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context (library scope and newest-first ordering) but says nothing about what 'choosing' does beyond returning, how it interacts with max_select, or any auth requirements.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is tight and readable, though arguably too terse given the undocumented parameter surface.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but with five undocumented parameters and no explanation of the selection behavior, the description is far too thin for the tool's actual complexity.
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% and there are five parameters, yet the description explains none of them. limit, max_select, q, folder_name, and the oddly-formatted connection_context token are left entirely opaque, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names a concrete operation (choose creatives) plus scope (caller's library) and ordering (newest first), so the surface intent is legible. However 'choose' is ambiguous for an agent deciding between this and siblings like creatives_list or creatives_get, and there is no differentiation from those tools.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given and no alternative tool is named. The agent must guess why it would pick creatives rather than list them, or how max_select relates to a downstream action.
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.