Delete a LinkedIn campaign by account and campaign ID. Drafts are removed instantly; active campaigns are set to pending deletion.
Deletes a LinkedIn campaign. Draft campaigns are deleted immediately. Non-draft campaigns are set to PENDING_DELETION status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountId | Yes | The LinkedIn Ad Account ID | |
| campaignId | Yes | The campaign ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that drafts are deleted immediately while non-drafts enter PENDING_DELETION status, which is important and non-obvious. However, it does not mention side effects like irreversibility or cascading actions, but the core destructive behavior and its variation are clearly disclosed.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes the crucial behavioral nuance without any fluff. Every word contributes value, and the structure is efficient.
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 delete tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral outcomes (immediate deletion vs pending status). It does not omit any critical information an agent would need to call the tool correctly.
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 100%, so both accountId and campaignId are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters (e.g., format, source, or validation rules). This meets the baseline for high coverage.
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 states the verb 'Deletes' and the resource 'LinkedIn campaign', and adds a specific behavioral distinction (draft vs non-draft). It is unambiguous and easily distinguishable from the sibling tool delete_campaign_group by name and description.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that delete_campaign_group should be used for campaign groups, nor does it state any preconditions or exclusions. The behavioral difference between drafts and non-drafts is useful but does not help an agent choose between this and other delete tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.