Delete an eBay ad from a marketing campaign by providing its ad ID and campaign ID.
Delete ad through the eBay Marketing API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| adId | Yes | adId required endpoint parameter | |
| campaignId | Yes | campaignId required endpoint parameter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.1Input schema / properties / adId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Ad ID"New value: +"adId required endpoint parameter"Input schema / properties / campaignId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Campaign ID"New value: +"campaignId required endpoint parameter"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "campaignId",
- "adId"
-]New value: +[
+ "adId",
+ "campaignId"
+]v1.8.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint: true), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the delete action. It does not state permanence, required permissions, or that the ad is tied to a campaign—any context beyond the annotation is absent.
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 one-sentence description is short, front-loaded, and free of fluff—'Delete ad through the eBay Marketing API' states the core action immediately. It lacks any secondary detail or structure, but as far as conciseness goes it uses only essential words.
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 delete tool with two required parameters and a destructive annotation, the description is thin. It fails to differentiate this tool from sibling bulk-delete operations, does not mention irreversibility or permission requirements, and gives no hint about success/failure behavior; an agent could easily pick the wrong deletion tool.
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% because both parameters have descriptions, though those descriptions only repeat the parameter names. The tool description itself does not explain what adId and campaignId mean or how they work together, so it adds no semantic value; the high coverage keeps this at baseline.
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 uses a specific verb—'Delete'—and identifies the resource—'ad'—plus the API domain. However, it does not distinguish this single-ad deletion from sibling bulk-delete tools such as ebay_delete_ads_by_inventory_reference or ebay_bulk_delete_ads_by_listing_id, so an agent must infer granularity from the parameters.
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?
No guidance is given for when to choose this tool over related ad-deletion tools. The description omits any mention of bulk vs. single deletion, and no alternative tools or conditions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.