Update a negative keyword's status using the eBay Marketing API to refine campaign targeting.
Update negative keyword through the eBay Marketing API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes | Update negative keyword request body | |
| negativeKeywordId | Yes | negativeKeywordId required endpoint parameter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.1Input schema / properties / negativeKeywordId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Negative Keyword ID"New value: +"negativeKeywordId required endpoint parameter"Input schema / properties / negativeKeywordStatusRemoved value: -{
- "description": "New status for the negative keyword (e.g. ACTIVE, ARCHIVED).",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / requestAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "description": "Update negative keyword request body",
+ "properties": {
+ "negativeKeywordStatus": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "negativeKeywordId",
- "negativeKeywordStatus"
-]New value: +[
+ "negativeKeywordId",
+ "request"
+]v1.12.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description simply restates that it updates, without explaining idempotency behavior, side effects, or status transition constraints. No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentence with no filler. It states the operation and API context directly, and every word contributes to the minimal meaning.
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?
The input schema is complete and the annotations provide safety-relevant hints, so the core input understanding is sufficient. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention response behavior or when to choose this over the bulk variants, leaving some contextual gaps.
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%, so the schema already documents both negativeKeywordId and the request object with negativeKeywordStatus. The description does not add additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.
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 and resource: 'Update negative keyword through the eBay Marketing API.' This clearly identifies the operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like ebay_bulk_update_negative_keyword or ebay_update_keyword.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ebay_bulk_update_negative_keyword, ebay_create_negative_keyword, or ebay_get_negative_keyword. The agent must 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.