x_ads_list_creativesFetch ad creative cards and media library assets in one request, with card and media cursors for paginated retrieval.
Creative inventory: cards (cap 200) and media library (cap 50) in one call. Page with cards_cursor / media_cursor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| account_id | Yes | Ads API account id from x_ads_list_accounts, e.g. 18ce55v2od2 | |
| cards_cursor | No | ||
| media_cursor | 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 known. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond those annotations: the 200-card cap, 50-item media cap, combined one-call behavior, and pagination via cards_cursor / media_cursor.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose and caps are front-loaded, and the pagination instruction is a natural follow-up. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description would need to carry more weight about what the response contains; it does say 'creative inventory: cards and media library,' which is a partial answer. Still, it omits count semantics, how cursors are obtained, and what fields are returned for each creative item, leaving notable gaps for a 4-parameter tool.
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%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters. The cursors get some meaning through the pagination sentence, but the count parameter remains completely unexplained in both the schema and description, and its relationship to the caps is unclear.
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 identifies the resource as 'creative inventory' and states that it combines cards and the media library in one call. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like x_ads_get_cards and x_ads_get_media by scope, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 'in one call' implies this tool is intended for retrieving both cards and media together, providing reasonable usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use get_cards or get_media instead, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the account_id referenced in the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.