Retrieve all campaigns for an ad account to review status, objective, and budget info.
List all campaigns for an ad account with status, objective, and budget info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ad_account_id | Yes | Ad account ID (e.g. act_123456789) | |
| status_filter | No | Filter campaigns by status | ALL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It signals a read-only operation via 'List' and discloses the returned information fields. However, it does not mention pagination, response shape, or that status_filter defaults to ALL, which is beyond the schema and would add useful behavioral context.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.
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 list tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose and the relevant response fields. It lacks any mention of pagination or output format, but the tool's simplicity and clear scope make the description reasonably complete despite the absence of annotations and output schema.
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%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond echoing 'ad account' and the return fields; it does not elaborate on status_filter, but the schema already does.
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 ('List') with a clear resource ('campaigns for an ad account') and names the returned fields (status, objective, budget). This distinguishes it from performance-focused siblings like get_campaign_performance without opening their schemas.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need a listing of campaigns for an ad account with status/objective/budget. It does not name alternatives or explicit exclusions, but the stated fields are enough to differentiate it from nearby siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.