Google Ad Manager MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the bulk operation, supported file formats, and that it returns results for all uploads, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing creatives), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling for unsupported files.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, parameter explanations, and additional notes. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args:' section could be integrated more smoothly. It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool with behavioral details.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description provides good context. It covers purpose, parameters, supported formats, and return behavior. The output schema will handle return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them. Some gaps remain in behavioral transparency.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic meaning for all 5 parameters: folder_path specifies the source, advertiser_id and line_item_id identify targets, click_through_url defines the destination, and name_prefix is optional for naming. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema types.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Upload all creatives from a folder and associate with a line item'), identifies the resource ('creatives'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'upload_creative' (singular) and 'upload_and_associate_creative' (which might handle single files). The bulk nature and folder-based approach are explicitly stated.

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 implies usage when you have multiple creatives in a folder to upload and associate with a line item, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'upload_creative' (for single files) or 'associate_creative_with_line_item' (for existing creatives). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.