list_customer_linksRetrieve the list of ad accounts linked between agencies and advertisers, then use the returned customerId to query other tools across multiple accounts.
대행사·광고주 간 연결된 광고계정 목록을 조회합니다. 여기서 얻은 customerId를 다른 툴의 customerId 인자로 넘겨 여러 계정을 오갈 수 있습니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | 연결 유형 필터. 생략하면 전체를 조회합니다. | |
| 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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing about pagination, result shape, or rate limits beyond what annotations supply.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the cross-tool hint. Appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter list tool.
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?
With no output schema, the description could state what the returned list contains (e.g. customerId/name fields) since that is the key payload an agent needs. It gestures at customerId but leaves the return structure implicit.
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%, so both parameters (type filter defaulting to all, customerId defaulting to NAVER_ADS_CUSTOMER_ID) are already documented. The description contributes the cross-tool reuse intent of customerId, but no additional syntax or semantics.
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?
States a specific verb (조회) and resource (대행사·광고주 간 연결된 광고계정 목록), which is distinct from sibling tools like list_campaigns or get_campaign. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against, keeping it short of a 5.
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 second sentence gives a real workflow cue: the customerId obtained here can be passed to other tools to move across accounts, implying this is a starting/lookup call. However there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.