Retrieve keyword performance metrics like text, match type, bid, and quality signals for any date range, with pagination for large datasets.
Keyword metrics (text, match type, bid, quality signals) 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one meaningful behavioral detail: results are bounded with pagination tokens, which signals a paged API. It does not mention read-only semantics, response shape, aggregation behavior, or any rate limits, so transparency is only partial.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds pagination behavior without filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important gaps: whether campaign_id or customer_id are required, default date-window behavior, conflict rules between last_n_days and explicit date ranges, pagination page size, and expected return structure. The agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly without additional inference.
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 six undocumented parameters. It loosely maps 'date window' to the date-related parameters and 'pagination tokens' to page_token, but it does not explain campaign_id or customer_id, nor how last_n_days relates to date_range_start/date_range_end. This is not enough compensation for the schema's complete lack of parameter descriptions.
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 keyword metrics and lists specific fields (text, match type, bid, quality signals), which is more specific than the tool name alone. It also states the date-window scope brief. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns,' and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling performance tools beyond the keyword focus.
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 siblings such as get_campaign_performance, get_ad_performance, discover_keywords, or get_keyword_forecasts. The description only says it provides keyword metrics for a date window, leaving the selection criteria entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.