Fetch ad-level metrics for a date range, using pagination tokens to page through large result sets.
Ad-level metrics for a date window; bounded with pagination tokens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_token | No | ||
| campaign_id | No | ||
| customer_id | No | ||
| last_n_days | No | ||
| date_range_end | No | ||
| date_range_start | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions pagination tokens, indicating paginated results. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, permission requirements, or rate limits—significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
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 12-word sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds the pagination note. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With 6 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fails to explain what metrics are returned, how to specify date ranges, or how pagination tokens are used. An agent would be unable to invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone.
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 for 6 undocumented parameters. It only hints at a 'date window' and 'pagination tokens', but does not explain date formats, mutual exclusivity, or the roles of customer_id/campaign_id—insufficient for the parameter count.
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 states the tool returns ad-level metrics within a date window, which identifies the resource and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_campaign_performance and get_keyword_performance via 'ad-level', though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus get_campaign_performance, get_keyword_performance, or other siblings. The description only states what it does, leaving selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.