pinterest_ads_list_targeting_templatesList saved targeting templates to reuse ad group targeting across campaigns. Search and filter templates by ad account, with optional audience sizing details.
List saved targeting templates (reusable targeting for ad groups).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_results | No | ||
| search_query | No | ||
| ad_account_id | No | ||
| include_sizing | 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 without the description. Beyond restating that these are saved templates, the description adds nothing behavioral – no pagination behavior, no note that ad_account_id is optional or that omitting it broadens scope.
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 tight sentence with zero wasted words and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, but efficiency here comes at the cost of thoroughness rather than being paired with it.
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, return values needn't be explained. But for a four-parameter list tool with entirely undocumented parameters and no usage guidance, the description is too thin – it leaves the agent guessing about filtering, pagination, and account scoping.
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% across four parameters (max_results, search_query, ad_account_id, include_sizing), and the description explains none of them. The description does not clarify what include_sizing toggles, whether search_query matches template names, or what happens when ad_account_id is null – the exact gap the description needed to fill.
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?
A specific verb ("List") plus resource ("targeting templates"), with a parenthetical clarifying that these are reusable targeting configurations for ad groups. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as pinterest_ads_list_report_templates or pinterest_ads_get_targeting_options, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives. It doesn't say whether templates are scoped to an ad account, whether search_query narrows results, or when an agent should prefer get_targeting_options instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.