x_ads_list_campaignsLists ad campaigns for a specified X/Twitter Ads account, returning status (active, paused, draft) and budget information to review or manage campaign performance.
List campaigns: status (ACTIVE/PAUSED/DRAFT) and any budgets. Requires account_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| account_id | Yes | Ads API account id from x_ads_list_accounts, e.g. 18ce55v2od2 | |
| with_deleted | No |
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 and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include statuses and budgets and that account_id is required, though the latter is already in the schema. It does not disclose pagination behavior or the effect of with_deleted.
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 brief sentences with the core action and a key requirement front-loaded. It is efficient, though 'Requires account_id' is redundant with the schema's required field.
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?
Without an output schema, the description should clarify return shape and pagination. It mentions statuses and budgets but leaves cursor, count, and with_deleted behavior unexplained, making the tool harder to invoke correctly for anything beyond the simplest call.
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 25%: only account_id has a description. The tool description mentions account_id as required and hints at output fields, but it does not clarify the meaning or usage of count, cursor, or with_deleted. Given the low coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.
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 and resource ('List campaigns') plus the meaningful scope of the output: status values and budgets. This differentiates it from sibling list tools such as x_ads_list_ads, x_ads_list_line_items, and x_ads_list_creatives without ambiguity.
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 implies when to use it: whenever campaign-level listing with status and budget visibility is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like x_ads_list_line_items or x_ads_list_ads for lower-level entities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.