x_ads_schedule_listList AdvisorPPC queue jobs by status to track ad scheduling and execution. Filter by scheduled, paused, running, done, failed, or cancelled.
List AdvisorPPC queue jobs (not X native). Filter by status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the domain scope 'AdvisorPPC queue jobs' and the exclusion of X native, which are not in annotations. It also mentions the filtering capability, but it does not describe response shape, pagination, or behavior when status is omitted, so added context is useful but limited.
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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and scope, then the filtering capability. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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 list tool with one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that omitting status returns all jobs or describing the response format, but these are reasonably inferable from the schema and list context.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential meaning by stating that status is a filter. Although it does not enumerate the enum values, those are present in the schema, and the description clarifies the parameter's role, which is significant for correct invocation.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource, 'AdvisorPPC queue jobs', and explicitly excludes X native, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like x_ads_schedule_create and x_ads_scheduler_status. The action and scope are immediately identifiable.
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 usage for listing AdvisorPPC queue jobs and notes the optional status filter, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related siblings such as x_ads_scheduler_status. The 'not X native' qualifier helps disambiguate scope, providing clear context without formal exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.