List all AdSense ad units in your account to view their name, display name, state, type, and size. Use this to audit or manage ad units across your properties.
List all ad units. Returns name, displayName, state, type, and size for each unit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| adClient | No | Ad client name. Auto-detected if omitted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool is a list operation and enumerates the returned fields, which is useful. However, it does not clarify the scoping behavior around the optional adClient parameter or potential pagination, and 'all ad units' is slightly ambiguous.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides exactly the output detail an agent needs without an output schema.
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 low-complexity list operation, the description covers the core purpose and return fields, and the schema handles the optional parameter. It is slightly incomplete regarding the adClient scoping caveat and sibling-tool routing, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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% for the single parameter, and the schema already explains that adClient is optional and auto-detected if omitted. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all ad units.' It clearly identifies the object type and differentiates from siblings like list_accounts and list_ad_clients by specifying the exact resource being listed.
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 imperative 'List all ad units' implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose it over related tools such as list_ad_clients or get_ad_code. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.