tiktok-ads-mcp

get_offline_event_sets_tool

List offline conversion event sets for an advertiser to identify which in-store or phone lead events match TikTok ad exposure. Returns event set IDs, names, statuses, event types, and creation times.

Instructions

List offline conversion event sets configured for an advertiser. Shows what offline events (e.g. in-store purchases, phone leads) are being matched back to TikTok ad exposure. Returns event_set_id, name, status, event_types, and create_time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`advertiser_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose that the tool returns event sets and lists specific fields, but it never explicitly states it is read-only, nor does it mention any pagination, permissions, or side effects. The implied read-only nature covers some ground, but more explicit transparency would be better.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences with no fluff. It leads with the primary action, then explains what is shown, then lists the return fields. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core purpose, the scope, and the return fields. Given that an output schema exists to detail the response structure, this is fairly complete. However, it omits any mention of pagination, error conditions, or the need for advertiser_id (though that is in the schema), so it's not fully exhaustive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does give context by saying 'configured for an advertiser', tying the advertiser_id to the resource being listed. However, it doesn't explain the format, constraints, or why the parameter is required beyond that. This adds some meaning but not a thorough explanation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('offline conversion event sets') plus the scope ('configured for an advertiser'). It's specific enough, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_pixels or get_campaigns, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, fail conditions, or scenarios where another tool would be preferred. With a large sibling set, this omission hurts discoverability.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.