list_ad_extensionsRetrieve phone, location, and promotional extensions attached to a Naver Search Ads campaign or ad group by owner ID for auditing and management.
캠페인 또는 광고그룹에 붙은 확장 소재(전화번호, 위치정보, 홍보문구 등)를 조회합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ownerId | Yes | 확장 소재를 소유한 nccCampaignId 또는 nccAdgroupId | |
| customerId | No | 조회할 광고계정 CUSTOMER_ID. 생략하면 NAVER_ADS_CUSTOMER_ID를 사용합니다. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool retrieves extension assets attached to a campaign or adgroup, but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or return format details.
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 that front-loads the core action and resource without any wasted words.
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 read-only list tool with fully described parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. It does not explain the return structure, but no output schema exists, and the tool name implies a list. Minor missing detail on possible filtering or pagination.
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 parameters fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states the verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) and the resource '확장 소재' (extension assets) attached to a campaign or adgroup, listing examples like phone numbers, location info, and promotional text. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings since no other listed tool handles extension assets, but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied from the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.