x_ads_audience_targetedRetrieve campaigns and ad groups currently targeting a specified custom audience. Provide account ID and custom audience ID to get the list.
Campaigns and ad groups currently targeting a custom audience.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes | Ads API account id from x_ads_list_accounts, e.g. 18ce55v2od2 | |
| with_active | No | ||
| custom_audience_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does 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's 'currently targeting' aligns with read-only behavior but adds no further behavioral detail such as pagination, filtering, or response shape. No contradiction exists.
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 filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse, though the title overlaps with the description meaning slightly.
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 simple read-only lookup tool, the core purpose is clear, but important context is missing: the meaning of with_active, what the response contains, and how it differs from closely related sibling tools. With no output schema, the description should carry more of this burden.
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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate. account_id is explained in the schema, but custom_audience_id and especially with_active are left undocumented in both schema and description. The name 'custom_audience_id' is somewhat self-explanatory, but with_active is ambiguous.
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 states a specific result: campaigns and ad groups currently targeting a custom audience. It has a clear verb/resource relationship and is not a tautology. It could more explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like x_ads_search_targeting or x_ads_list_audiences, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description states what the tool does but not when it should be selected over x_ads_search_targeting or x_ads_list_audiences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.