reddit_ads_list_devicesRetrieve device makes and models for Reddit Ads targeting. Use this to target specific devices in campaigns.
List device makes and models for targeting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_pages | No | Follow pagination.next_url up to this many pages and merge results (default 1) | |
| page_size | No | Items per page (usually max 1000) | |
| page_token | No | Page token from a previous pagination.next_url |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the data is targeting reference material; it says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or the shape of returned device makes/models.
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?
A single eleven-word sentence that front-loads the resource and closes with the purpose; there is no filler or redundancy.
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 three-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the definition conveys what is listed but not what a returned entry looks like or how the pagination parameters interact. The complete schema coverage compensates for the parameter gap, leaving it merely adequate.
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%: all three pagination parameters (max_pages, page_size, page_token) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (device makes and models) plus the use case (targeting), so an agent can tell it is a reference-data lookup rather than a mutation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other targeting reference lists (carriers, languages, interests, geolocations), so it stops short of a 5.
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?
"for targeting" gives implied usage context, indicating it is consulted when building device targeting criteria. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or any stated preconditions, so this is only minimally adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.