tiktok-ads-mcp

get_video_assets_tool

Retrieve an advertiser's creative video assets, returning video IDs, names, durations, dimensions, cover URLs, and creation times. Filter by video name to locate specific videos.

Instructions

Browse the creative video asset library for an advertiser. Returns video_id, video_name, duration, width, height, cover_url, create_time, size. Optional filtering dict supports keys like 'video_name' for name search.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`filtering`	No
`page_size`	No
`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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a read-oriented browsing operation and discloses the returned fields and filtering capability. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, response limits, or any operational side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by useful return-field information and filtering guidance. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the main purpose, return fields, and a filtering example, and an output schema exists. However, it omits pagination semantics and any guidance on when to use this tool versus related video or asset tools, leaving moderate gaps for an agent planning a call.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for the filtering object by mentioning the 'video_name' key and implies advertiser_id via 'for an advertiser'. However, it does not explain the page or page_size parameters, leaving part of the parameter space undocumented.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('creative video asset library for an advertiser'). It also lists the exact return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_campaigns_tool or get_video_performance_tool.

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 provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The description implies use when browsing video assets, but it does not explicitly mention sibling tools or exclusion criteria.

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