ads.api.version_deltaCompare two API versions to identify exactly which resources, services, and enums were added or removed, so you can plan an upgrade without a token.
Exact resources/services/enums added or removed between two API versions (computed from the installed SDK; plan an upgrade without a token).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_version | No | v26 | |
| from_version | No | v24 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description does meaningful work: it discloses that results are 'computed from the installed SDK' (local computation, not a live API call) and that it works 'without a token', covering the auth/safety profile an agent needs. It stops short of stating what happens for unknown version strings or whether results are cached.
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 stating what is returned, followed by a parenthetical giving the mechanism and the benefit. Zero wasted words.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the read-only, no-auth nature is covered. However, for a two-parameter tool whose schema documents neither parameter, the description leaves the caller guessing about argument format and default behavior.
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 both parameters, so the description must compensate. It establishes that two API versions are compared (mapping to from_version/to_version) and that the delta is 'added or removed', but it never specifies the version string format, the direction of the comparison, or the v24/v26 defaults.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: it computes exactly which resources, services, and enums were added or removed between two API versions, derived from the installed SDK. An agent can distinguish it from report-style siblings like ads.fields.deltas or ads.fields.new_views, though the description never names those nearest alternatives.
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 parenthetical 'plan an upgrade without a token' implies the upgrade-planning use case, which is useful context. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no comparison to the closely related ads.fields.deltas / ads.fields.new_views tools, so the agent must infer which one to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.