Change a LinkedIn ad's status to active, paused, or archived by providing the account ID, creative ID, and desired status.
Updates the intended status of a LinkedIn creative/ad. Can activate, pause, or archive creatives.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountId | Yes | The LinkedIn Ad Account ID | |
| creativeId | Yes | The creative ID (numeric ID or full URN) | |
| intendedStatus | Yes | New intended status for the creative |
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 the full behavioral disclosure burden. It says 'updates the intended status' but does not clarify whether this has immediate effects, requires specific permissions, or is reversible. It also doesn't explain side effects on related entities or how 'intended' differs from actual status. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core function and gives concrete examples of the status transitions in a compact way.
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 low-complexity mutation tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential intent. It doesn't mention return values or prerequisites, but the schema and enums cover the key calling details. It is adequate, though a note on permissions or side effects would push it higher.
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 adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, merely restating that the tool can activate, pause, or archive, which mirrors the enum values. No additional context about the parameters (e.g., URN format, required account state) is provided.
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 a specific verb ('Updates'), a resource ('LinkedIn creative/ad'), and the scope ('intended status'). It also enumerates the supported operations (activate, pause, archive), which distinguish it from sibling tools like create_creative or update_campaign.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use for status changes, but it never names sibling tools, prerequisites, or conditions under which one status should be chosen over another. No 'when not to use' is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.