Pause ad campaigns across multiple platforms by ID to temporarily stop ad delivery and spending. This tool helps manage campaign activity on Google, Meta, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Reddit, TikTok, and X.
Pause a campaign by ID. Works across all connected platforms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_id | Yes | Campaign ID (platform-specific format) | |
| platform | Yes | Ad platform |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not elaborate on behavioral traits beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It doesn't clarify whether pausing is reversible, what side effects occur (e.g., stops spend immediately or gradually), or any prerequisites. The term 'Pause' suggests a reversible action, which may contradict the destructiveHint annotation, creating ambiguity.
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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the action. It is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every sentence earns its place, but more detail would be beneficial.
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?
Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and a destructiveHint annotation, the description is minimal. It does not explain the return behavior, confirm the action, or differentiate from 25 sibling tools that also modify campaigns. The scope claim is useful but insufficient for complete context.
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 input schema already covers both parameters (platform and campaign_id) with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond stating 'by ID' and 'across platforms', which is already implied by the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Pause' and the resource 'campaign by ID', and specifies the scope 'Works across all connected platforms'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, list, update, or manage campaigns.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. It merely states the action without contextual cues, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.