pinterest_ads_get_ad_accountRetrieve one Pinterest ad account’s name, currency, country, time zone, owner, and permissions to verify account details and access rights.
Get one ad account: name, currency, country, time zone, owner and permissions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ad_account_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 elsewhere. The description adds the returned field set as context but says nothing about the effect of a null/missing ad_account_id, required access/permissions, or error behavior for an unknown ID.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and the core action stated first. The trailing field list arguably duplicates the output schema, which is minor waste but does not obscure the purpose.
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?
Because an output schema exists, the description need not enumerate return values, and annotations cover safety, so the tool does not need a long description. However, for a lookup keyed on an optional, nullable ID, the definition should clarify how the target account is resolved when the parameter is absent.
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% for the single parameter, so the description carries the full burden and fails to compensate: ad_account_id is never mentioned. The listing of returned fields describes output, not the input, which is already covered by the output schema. The nullable-with-null-default behavior of the identifier is left entirely unexplained.
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?
"Get one ad account" states a specific verb and singular resource, and the qualifier "one" implicitly separates it from the sibling pinterest_ads_list_ad_accounts. The field list (name, currency, country, time zone, owner, permissions) further pins down what is returned, though the sibling is never named explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this when you already have an ad account ID versus calling pinterest_ads_list_ad_accounts to discover one. It also gives no prerequisites or hint about what happens when ad_account_id is omitted, despite that parameter being nullable with a null default.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.