Retrieve saved and matched audiences from your LinkedIn Ads account to review names, sizes, and statuses for targeting decisions.
Lists saved/matched audiences available in the account for targeting. Shows audience names, sizes, and statuses to help plan campaign targeting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| accountId | Yes | The LinkedIn Ad Account ID | |
| audienceType | No | Filter by audience type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Lists') but does not mention pagination, response format, rate limits, or any caveats about what audiences are returned. The description is minimal and adds little beyond the basic action.
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 sentences with no redundant information. The primary action and purpose are front-loaded, and the additional detail about the output content is concise and useful. No unnecessary words.
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 no annotations, the description is adequate for a simple listing tool but omits details about response structure, pagination, or behavior when filters are applied. It covers the basics (what it lists and why) but could do more to inform an agent of edge cases or additional fields returned.
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 the baseline is 3. The description 'shows audience names, sizes, and statuses' implies output content but does not add meaning to the parameters themselves. The filters (status, audienceType) are already documented in the schema, and the description does not elaborate on how they affect results.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists saved/matched audiences in the account for targeting, and specifically mentions showing names, sizes, and statuses. This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_audience_demographics or get_audience_reach.
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 clear context (used for planning campaign targeting) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. It gives enough context for an agent to infer the intended use case, but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.