Google Ad Manager MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's conditional behavior (find or create based on existence) and that email is used only for creation. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'exact name' entails (case-sensitivity, whitespace). The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive coverage for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, and the structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return value adequately. However, as a mutation tool with conditional behavior, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., idempotency, error cases) to be fully comprehensive.

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 explains that 'name' is for exact advertiser name matching and 'email' is optional and used only if creating. This adds crucial semantic meaning beyond the schema's basic types, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., email validation).

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('find' and 'create') and resource ('advertiser'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'find_advertiser' (find only) and 'create_advertiser' (create only) by combining both operations. The first sentence explicitly defines the dual functionality.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: use this tool to find an advertiser by exact name or create one if not found. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like 'find_advertiser' (for lookup only) and 'create_advertiser' (for creation only), and specifies the condition ('if not found') for when creation occurs.

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