Verifies live Google Ads API access by performing an authenticated read, confirming credentials, configuration, and guardrail state are valid. Returns OK only when the API actually responds.
Truthful liveness: performs a real authenticated Google Ads read and reports config, credentials, and guardrail state. OK means the API answered — never that config files merely exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that the check makes a real authenticated API call, that OK means the API responded, and that it reports config, credentials, and guardrail state. It stops short of describing failure modes or response format, but the core behavioral truth is clearly exposed.
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 two tight sentences with no filler. 'Truthful liveness' is front-loaded, and every phrase adds meaning: real, authenticated, read, reports what it reports, and the explicit clarification of what OK means.
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 parameterless diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states the tool's behavior, the meaning of a successful result, and the categories of state it reports, giving an agent enough context to invoke it and interpret its purpose without further documentation.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics; it instead clarifies what the check reports, which is appropriate for a parameterless health check.
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: it performs a real authenticated Google Ads read and reports configuration, credential, and guardrail state. It also distinguishes itself from naive file-existence checks with the explicit 'never that config files merely exist' contrast, setting it clearly apart from the data-fetching sibling tools.
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 when to use this tool: to verify live API connectivity, credentials, and guardrails before relying on other operations. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.