Lists saved and matched audiences in a LinkedIn Ads account, showing names, sizes, and statuses to help plan campaign targeting.
Lists saved/matched audiences available in the account for targeting. Shows audience names, sizes, and statuses to help plan campaign targeting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| accountId | Yes | The LinkedIn Ad Account ID | |
| audienceType | No | Filter by audience type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is well covered. The description adds that returned data covers names, sizes, and statuses, but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or the implications of the open-world/network dependency. Modest added value beyond 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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every clause earns its place, and no redundancy with the title or schema.
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 low-risk read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and returned fields sufficiently. The only minor gap is lack of routing guidance to sibling audience tools, which is not critical for invocation correctness.
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 all three parameters (accountId, status, audienceType) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add filtering syntax, defaults, or enum semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (saved/matched audiences) with clear scope ('available in the account for targeting'). Distinguishes itself from audience analytics siblings like get_audience_demographics or get_audience_reach by framing it as a discovery/list tool, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
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 phrase 'to help plan campaign targeting' implies the use case (pre-campaign audience discovery), but it does not state when to use this versus get_audience_reach or get_audience_demographics, nor does it give any exclusions. Usage context is implied only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.