list_ordersRetrieve all buy orders (campaigns) or sell orders (placements) for one ad format to review advertiser campaigns or publisher placements in TrafficOX.
All buy orders (campaigns) or sell orders (placements) of the account for one ad format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| side | Yes | buy = advertiser campaigns (you pay for traffic); sell = publisher placements (you earn) | |
| format | Yes | Ad format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that — no pagination, ordering, result caps, or volume expectations — and the buy/sell semantics it restates are already in the schema.
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?
A single tight sentence with the key qualifiers (buy vs sell, one format, this account) front-loaded. It earns its place, though the parenthetical glosses duplicate schema enum text rather than adding information.
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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool operates on but omits anything about the return shape or result size. Combined with annotations covering the read-only profile, it is minimally viable rather than complete.
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 100% and both parameters have enums with their own descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'for one ad format' echoes the format parameter but adds no syntax or value detail beyond the schema.
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 names the resource (orders) and distinguishes both modes (buy orders = campaigns, sell orders = placements) and the scoping (one ad format, this account). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the singular sibling get_order.
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 list tool versus get_order, get_order_stats, or the set_* state tools. The agent must infer from the name that this is the enumeration tool; no conditions or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.