Monitor budget pacing and spend status for active ad campaigns. Detect overspend or underdelivery to adjust budgets promptly.
Get budget pacing and spend status for active campaigns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign_ids | No | Specific campaign IDs to check. If empty, checks all active campaigns. | |
| ad_account_id | Yes | Ad account ID (e.g. act_123456789) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only conveys a read operation scoped to active campaigns and does not detail response format, pacing semantics, error behavior, or account-level defaults beyond what the schema already indicates.
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 concise sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, this is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left guessing how 'budget pacing and spend status' is represented in the response (e.g., percentages, currency, remaining budget).
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters including the default behavior of campaign_ids and the ad account ID format. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('budget pacing and spend status') with a clear scope ('active campaigns'). It is enough to distinguish the tool from performance or creative metrics siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_campaign_performance, get_campaigns, or other siblings. There are no exclusions, conditions, or suggested alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.