Retrieve search-term reports within a date window, with pagination tokens to keep results bounded. Filter by campaign or customer to analyze query performance.
Search-term report for a date window; bounded with pagination tokens — no unbounded dumps.
| 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 carries the burden. It discloses pagination-bounded behavior ('no unbounded dumps'), which is useful, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires specific IDs, what the response shape is, or any rate-limit implications. The pagination note adds value but leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 a meaningful constraint. It is efficient, though it could earn a 5 by adding a brief usage pointer without bloating.
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 6-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell which parameters are required, how date filtering works, what the report contains, or what the pagination token flow is. The pagination note is a good start, but the overall context is incomplete.
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, but it only mentions 'date window' and 'pagination tokens' generically. It does not explain the roles of campaign_id, customer_id, last_n_days, date_range_start, or date_range_end, nor how they interact. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare field names.
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 a specific verb and resource ('Search-term report for a date window') and adds a distinguishing behavioral note about pagination tokens. It is clear enough to separate from siblings like get_keyword_performance, though it does not explicitly name a sibling 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?
The description implies the tool is for date-windowed search-term reports and mentions pagination, but it does not state when to prefer this over get_keyword_performance or other reporting tools, nor does it mention required parameters or exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.