Fetch ad campaign performance metrics including spend, impressions, clicks, CTR, CPC, conversions, and ROAS. Provide brand UUID and lookback days to retrieve actionable data.
Ad campaign performance: spend, impressions, clicks, CTR, CPC, conversions, ROAS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No | Brand UUID | |
| days | No | Lookback days |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears the responsibility for behavioral transparency. It lists the returned metrics, which imply a read-only data retrieval, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is safe, requires no side effects, or any constraints. The description is not contradictory but is minimal in behavioral disclosure.
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 a single, compact line that immediately communicates the tool's focus and enumerates all core metrics. It contains no filler words and is well-structured for quick parsing.
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?
The tool is simple (two optional parameters, no output schema), and the description names the key output metrics, which are standard terms (CTR, CPC, ROAS) that an agent would recognize. It does not describe the output format or units, but the context is sufficiently covered for a straightforward metrics retrieval tool.
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?
Both parameters (days, project_id) are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage context for these parameters beyond the schema.
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 identifies the specific resource (ad campaign) and the key performance metrics (spend, impressions, clicks, etc.), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like CRM summary or SEO status. However, it uses a noun-phrase format without an explicit verb, so the action is only implied by the tool name.
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 the tool is used when ad campaign performance data is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like maasy_get_crm_summary or maasy_get_daily_summary. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.