Retrieve existing Campaign Manager 360 report files and check their generation status without creating a new report.
List existing CM360 report files and their status; no new report is generated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| report_id | Yes | ||
| page_token | No | ||
| profile_id | Yes |
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful clarification that it lists existing files and does not generate a new report, but it omits other behavioral context such as pagination behavior or permissions.
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 a single compact sentence with no wasted words, and the key distinction—listing existing files and not generating a new report—is front-loaded.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But the tool has five parameters with zero schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate for that gap. For a multi-parameter tool requiring profile_id and report_id, the definition is materially incomplete.
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?
The tool has five parameters including two required ones, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description says nothing about profile_id, report_id, account, page_size, or page_token, so it provides no semantic meaning beyond the bare parameter names.
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 states a specific verb and resource: "List existing CM360 report files and their status." It clearly distinguishes this from generating a new report, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_cm360_reports or get_cm360_report_file.
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 phrase "no new report is generated" implies this should be used for inspecting existing report files rather than creating reports. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_cm360_reports or get_cm360_report_file, and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.