google_ads_onboardingReturn the 11-question onboarding flow with current profile state and missing critical fields to identify what is needed for setup completion.
Return the 11-question Delx onboarding flow plus the current profile state and missing critical fields. Same profile reused across all Delx MCPs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | ||
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about returning profile state and missing fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.
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 that are front-loaded with the primary purpose. No wasted words; every part adds value.
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?
Given no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the main return elements (onboarding flow, profile state, missing fields) but lacks detail on the structure of the onboarding flow or the output format beyond the response_format parameter. Adequate but not thorough.
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 coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain the 'locale' or 'response_format' parameters, leaving their meaning and impact implicit. The agent must rely solely on enum names, which may be ambiguous (e.g., locale='pt-BR' likely means Portuguese, but not stated).
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 specifies the verb 'Return' and the resource: '11-question Delx onboarding flow plus the current profile state and missing critical fields'. It also distinguishes from siblings like 'google_ads_profile_get' by including the onboarding flow, and mentions the shared profile context.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'google_ads_profile_get'. The implied usage is for retrieving the onboarding flow, but no direct guidance on context or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.