Retrieve geographic performance metrics for Google Ads campaigns by date range, using pagination tokens to navigate bounded results.
Geographic performance 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It does disclose that results are date-window bounded and pagination tokens are used, implying a batched read operation. However, it doesn't describe return contents, page size, or how date filters interact with last_n_days.
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?
One compact sentence with no redundancy. The key facts—geographic scope, date window, and pagination bound—are front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.
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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It doesn't explain required filters, how pagination tokens are obtained or used, or what the returned geographic performance data looks like.
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 six parameters, so the description must compensate. It only glosses the date-window and pagination concepts; campaign_id, customer_id, and the relationship between last_n_days and date_range_start/end remain unclear.
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 resource as geographic performance and scopes it to a date window, which matches the tool name. It lacks an explicit verb and doesn't differentiate it from sibling performance tools, but the 'geographic' dimension makes the purpose reasonably clear.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_campaign_performance or get_keyword_performance. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.