sa360.searchRun read-only SA360 queries using SELECT ... FROM statements to retrieve campaign data, letting AI agents inspect marketing metrics without changing accounts.
Run an arbitrary read-only SA360 query (SA360 query language: SELECT ... FROM ...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| customer_id | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation is read-only, which is useful, but says nothing about authorization requirements, query limitations, result size constraints, or how customer_id scopes access.
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 definition is a single sentence with the core operation front-loaded and no wasted text. It is perhaps too terse given the missing parameter context, but the structure itself is efficient.
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 not be explained. However, with no annotations, two required parameters at 0% schema coverage, and an arbitrary-query surface, the description omits essential details such as customer_id semantics and query limitations, leaving an agent under-informed.
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 partially explains the query parameter by noting the SA360 query language syntax (SELECT ... FROM ...), but provides no guidance on customer_id and no query examples or constraints.
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 names a specific verb (Run) and resource (SA360 query), and explicitly says it is an arbitrary read-only query using the SA360 query language. It does not name the sibling report tools (sa360.report.campaign, sa360.report.ad_group) that an agent would choose between, so it stops short of a 5.
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 word 'arbitrary' implies this is the flexible alternative to the fixed report tools, but the description never explicitly states when to use this instead of sa360.report.campaign or sa360.report.ad_group. There are no exclusions or prerequisites, so usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.