list_search_enginesRetrieves accepted search engines and marketplaces for CTR campaigns, specifying valid values for the search_engine parameter.
Return the search engines and marketplaces accepted by create_ctr_campaign.search_engine.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | Yes | ||
| search_engines | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side effects. The description adds context beyond these by linking the returned data to a specific parameter in create_ctr_campaign, which helps the agent understand the data's purpose. This adds value without contradicting annotations.
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 sentence with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and every word contributes. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter, output-schema-backed 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?
The output schema exists, so return format is already documented. The description covers the only missing piece: what the returned values represent (valid search_engine options for a specific campaign type). An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.
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 zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and the description need not elaborate on parameter meanings. Per the rubric, 0 params sets a baseline of 4; the description does not need to add anything and does not.
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 ('Return') and names the resource ('search engines and marketplaces') with a clear linkage to a sibling tool's parameter ('accepted by create_ctr_campaign.search_engine'). This instantly distinguishes it from all other tools, which either fetch data or create campaigns. An agent knows exactly what this tool provides.
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 its usage: before calling create_ctr_campaign, an agent should call this tool to get valid values for the search_engine parameter. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need the allowed values' or mention any alternatives. Since there is no other listing tool among the siblings, the implicit context is sufficient, but a more explicit 'when to use' would push it to a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.