list_keywordsRetrieve keywords registered in a Naver Search Ads ad group, including bid and status. For performance metrics like impressions and clicks, use get_stats instead.
광고그룹에 등록된 키워드 목록과 입찰가·상태를 조회합니다. 노출·클릭·비용 같은 성과 지표는 포함되지 않으므로 get_stats를 함께 쓰세요.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| adgroupId | Yes | 조회할 광고그룹의 nccAdgroupId. list_adgroups로 먼저 확인하세요. | |
| 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 safety is covered. The description adds what is returned (bid, status) and what is excluded (impressions, clicks, cost), but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or output format details; with annotations doing heavy lifting, this is adequate but has clear gaps.
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 sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the exclusion plus alternative is stated compactly and secondarily.
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 list tool with no output schema, annotations covering safety, and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough: it states scope, returned fields, and the key exclusion, and routes the agent to the right sibling for performance data.
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 adgroupId and customerId are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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+resource: list keywords in an ad group, including bid and status. It distinguishes the tool from get_stats by noting that performance metrics are excluded, so the agent can route correctly without opening other schemas.
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?
Explicitly says performance metrics are not included and directs the agent to use get_stats together. This names the alternative and the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.