list_adsRetrieve ads registered to a Naver Search Ads ad group, including titles, descriptions, landing URLs, and review status. Use it to inspect ad creatives before editing or reporting.
광고그룹에 등록된 광고 소재(제목·설명·연결 URL)와 검수 상태를 조회합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| adgroupId | Yes | 조회할 광고그룹의 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds that the read returns title, description, link URL and review status, but does not describe ordering, pagination, or result limits, which is a moderate gap for a list operation.
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 short sentence that front-loads the resource, scope, returned fields and status. Every element earns its place with no filler or repetition.
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 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, full annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It tells the agent what entity is listed and what data comes back; only list behavior such as pagination or ordering is unstated.
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 adgroupId and customerId both documented in the schema, including the fallback to NAVER_ADS_CUSTOMER_ID. The description adds no additional meaning beyond saying the target is an ad group, so the baseline 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 a specific verb (조회합니다) and resource (광고 소재 목록) scoped to an ad group, and lists the returned fields (제목·설명·연결 URL) plus review status. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_ad, which likely returns a single ad.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_ad or other list_* tools. No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no routing hints are present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.