list_campaign_video_performanceRank a campaign's tracked videos by views, likes, comments, shares, or collects over a date range, with pagination for more results.
Rank tracked videos by observed period metrics. Follow next_offset for more results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| start | Yes | ||
| offset | No | ||
| sort_by | No | views | |
| campaign_id | Yes | ||
| granularity | No | day |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail (pagination via next_offset), but that token isn't among the schema parameters and no other behavior (ranking tie-breaking, empty results, permission scope) is disclosed.
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?
Two short sentences with no padding, and the core behavior is front-loaded. The second sentence is useful but references a token not present in the schema, which costs a little clarity.
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?
For a 7-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should at least characterize the returned metrics and the paging model. It hints at paging but leaves the metric set, ranking semantics, and all filtering parameters unexplained.
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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails to. It says nothing about start/end time windows, sort_by, granularity, or limit/offset bounds, and 'next_offset' does not even match the offset parameter name in 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 verb 'Rank' and resource 'tracked videos by observed period metrics' give a rough purpose, but the tool's actual scope (campaign-scoped video performance) is only inferable from the name. It doesn't differentiate itself from close siblings like list_campaign_creator_performance or get_campaign_video_history.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus list_campaign_creator_performance, get_campaign_performance, or get_campaign_video_history, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.