Retrieve Adobe Target activities with optional filtering and sorting to manage and review campaigns efficiently.
List all Target activities with optional filtering and sorting
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of activities to return | |
| offset | No | Number of activities to skip | |
| sortBy | No | Field to sort by (e.g., "id", "name", "state") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only list operation and mentions optional filtering/sorting, but it leaves out behavioral details such as pagination defaults, whether archived/inactive activities are included, or how filtering is actually expressed given the schema only exposes limit, offset, and sortBy. This is a moderate transparency gap.
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, well-structured sentence with no redundant content. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately conveys the optional capabilities, 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?
For a simple list operation with three optional and well-documented parameters, this description plus the schema is enough for correct invocation. It does not describe the return shape or pagination behavior, but no output schema exists and the operation is low-risk, so these omissions are not critical.
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%: limit, offset, and sortBy each have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail and only vaguely references 'filtering/sorting', which could even be slightly misleading since there are no explicit filter parameters. With full schema coverage, 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 the specific verb 'List' and resource 'Target activities', and notes optional filtering/sorting. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like listProperties (different resource) and getABActivity (singular fetch). It is not a tautology and gives the agent an exact sense of scope.
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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives. It does not mention getABActivity for retrieving a single activity or listProperties for properties, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use conditions. The only signal is the inherent 'list' framing, so usage context is effectively undirected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.