Company Ads
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trim | No | Set to true for a trimmed response | |
| cursor | No | Cursor for pagination | |
| pageId | No | Facebook page ID | |
| status | No | Status filter | |
| country | No | Country filter | |
| end_date | No | End date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| language | No | Language filter | |
| media_type | No | Media type filter | |
| start_date | No | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| companyName | No | Company name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description 'Company Ads' discloses zero behavioral traits. There is no mention of pagination, authentication, data returned, or any side effects, leaving the agent completely in the dark.
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?
While the description is extremely short, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A one-word phrase with no structure fails to earn its place as a useful description.
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?
This is a 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotation support. The description provides no context about return values, required inputs, or operational behavior, making it completely inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 input schema provides descriptions for all 10 parameters (100% coverage), so the description need not re-iterate them. However, the description adds no insight into how parameters like companyName, pageId, or status are used or related. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema 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 'Company Ads' is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no verb or action. It does not state whether the tool lists, scrapes, or searches company ads, and it fails to differentiate from sibling tools like scrapecreators_company_ads_get.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings such as scrapecreators_ad_details, scrapecreators_advertiser_search, and scrapecreators_company_ads_get suggest related but distinct purposes, yet the description provides no context for choosing among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.