reddit_ads_validate_keywordsValidates Reddit Ads keywords for brand safety before adding them to campaigns, helping prevent ads from appearing alongside unsuitable content.
Check whether keywords are brand safe.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
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 nothing beyond that: it does not explain what 'brand safe' is evaluated against, whether results are per-keyword or aggregate, how unsafe keywords are reported, or any rate/limit behavior.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the key concept (brand safety) is front-loaded. It is efficiently written even though it is under-informative.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations describing the response, so the description should explain what the validation returns (e.g., per-keyword verdicts, flagged terms). It does not, and it leaves the nested input shape undocumented, which is a real gap for a validation endpoint.
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 0% and the input is a nested object ('data.keywords'), which the description never mentions. It also omits the 1–1000 item count constraints, leaving the agent to discover the required nesting and array bounds from the raw schema only.
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 ('Check') and resource ('keywords') plus the outcome being tested for ('brand safe'), which meaningfully separates it from reddit_ads_suggest_keywords, which generates rather than validates keywords. It does not, however, name or contrast with any sibling explicitly.
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 gives no when-to-use conditions, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is for pre-flight screening of keyword lists against brand-safety rules, with no statement of when it should be preferred over suggest_keywords.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.