list_ad_groupsRetrieve ad groups for a parent campaign ID to inspect campaign structure and optimize performance. Supports pagination, ordering, and result limits for efficient management.
List ad groups for a specific parent campaign ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | Pagination cursor | |
| limit | No | Number of items to return | |
| order | No | ||
| campaign_id | Yes | Parent campaign ID (e.g. cmpn_101) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 says 'List' and implies a read operation; it does not mention pagination behavior, ordering, default limits, or what happens when no ad groups exist. This is a minimal disclosure.
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 one short sentence with no wasted words. The action and primary scope are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so more explanatory weight falls on the description. The description correctly identifies the input scope but does not address return format, pagination behavior, or parameter semantics, leaving an agent under-equipped for a correct invocation beyond the required campaign_id.
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 75%, so it is not high enough to earn the baseline 3. The description only restates the campaign_id concept already in the schema and adds no meaning about the 'after' cursor, 'limit', or 'order' parameters beyond what the schema provides.
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'), identifies the resource ('ad groups'), and scopes it to a parent campaign ID. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ad_group (singular retrieval) and list_campaigns (different resource).
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 implies usage context: call this when you need ad groups for a specific campaign. However, it does not mention alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving the routing decision partially to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.