List Campaign Manager 360 campaigns for a profile with optional search and account filters. Choose whether to include archived campaigns and page through results.
List CM360 campaigns. Omit archived for both active and archived campaigns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| archived | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| page_token | No | ||
| profile_id | Yes | ||
| advertiser_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the ambiguous sentence 'Omit archived for both active and archived campaigns,' which does not clearly state whether omitting the parameter includes or excludes archived campaigns.
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 short and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. However, the second sentence is confusing and therefore does not fully earn its place, weakening the overall structure.
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 seven-parameter listing tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. The output schema handles return values, but the description still leaves parameter meaning and filtering behavior almost entirely unexplained.
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 tool has seven parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains none of them clearly: search, account, page_size, page_token, profile_id, and advertiser_id are completely unaddressed, and the archived parameter is only referenced ambiguously.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List CM360 campaigns.' That is clear enough to distinguish this tool from DV360 and SA360 siblings, but it does not explicitly name or compare against sibling tools such as list_dv360_campaigns or list_cm360_profiles.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor about prerequisites such as needing a profile_id. The second sentence addresses an archived-filtering behavior, not usage selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.