Search Amazon Ads API operations by keyword to locate any of ~1,200 published specs, enabling quick reference for account management and reporting tasks.
Find any of the ~1,200 operations in Amazon's published specs by keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api | No | ||
| text | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the scope (~1,200 operations in published specs) but does not describe behavior such as return format, pagination, or filtering logic. With annotations present, this is adequate but not additional rich behavioral disclosure.
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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Find') and the resource ('any of the ~1,200 operations'), making the purpose immediately clear.
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?
Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description lacks key context: it does not explain the 'api' parameter, offer any usage guidance, or mention what happens when no results are found. For a tool with two parameters, this is incomplete from an agent's decision-making perspective.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains the 'text' parameter as a keyword but leaves 'api' completely unexplained, despite it being an optional filter. The description only partially compensates for the schema gap.
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 tool's function: finding operations from Amazon's published specs by keyword. It uses a specific verb ('find'), a specific resource ('operations in Amazon's published specs'), and a specific method ('by keyword'), which distinguishes it from siblings like call_operation or get_plan.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that call_operation should be used for invoking operations, or any other contrast with sibling tools. Usage context is only implied by the search-oriented phrasing, not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.