x_ads_scheduler_statusCheck the ad scheduling job queue to view worker status, active agents, upcoming jobs, and last run times. In HTTP mode, the worker starts automatically.
AdvisorPPC's own job queue (Ads API has no native schedule). Shows worker, agents, upcoming jobs, last runs. HTTP mode starts the worker by itself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds a meaningful non-obvious caveat: 'HTTP mode starts the worker by itself.' This goes beyond what annotations or schema provide. The phrasing is slightly ambiguous about whether the tool invocation triggers the worker start, so it is not a 5.
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 three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool is, what it displays, and an operational caveat. There is no filler, repetition, or restatement of the title.
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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description lists key output categories and notes HTTP-mode behavior, which is sufficient for correct invocation and basic interpretation. It could be slightly more explicit about interpreting fields like 'last runs,' but nothing essential is missing.
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?
This tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter guidance is trivially unnecessary here.
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 identifies a concrete resource ('AdvisorPPC's own job queue') and a specific verb ('Shows'), enumerating the output categories: worker, agents, upcoming jobs, last runs. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like schedule_list or scheduler_settings.
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 makes the intended use clear: inspect the state of AdvisorPPC's custom scheduler queue. The parenthetical about Ads API having no native schedule adds context, and the HTTP-mode caveat is useful. However, no explicit when-not or alternative routing to scheduler_setup or schedule_list is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.