Create KPI automation rules that monitor metrics like ROAS, CPA, or spend and trigger pause_campaign or notify actions when thresholds are met.
Create a KPI rule. Supported actions are pause_campaign and notify.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| metric | Yes | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| operator | Yes | ||
| threshold | Yes | ||
| campaign_id | No | ||
| cooldown_minutes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It does not say whether the rule fires immediately on creation, whether pause_campaign will actually halt live campaigns (a destructive side effect), what enabled defaults to, or what the response contains.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The brevity is appropriate in form, though it comes at the cost of substance rather than padding.
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 9-parameter mutation tool with 5 required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits the rule's evaluation model, firing behavior, and the effect of the two actions. An agent could not reliably construct a correct rule from this text alone.
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 0% across 9 parameters. The description only echoes the action enum (pause_campaign/notify), which is already in the schema, and says nothing about metric, operator, threshold, campaign_id, cooldown_minutes, or enabled. With this many undocumented parameters the description fails to compensate.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Create a KPI rule") and briefly names the supported action values. "Create" distinguishes it from ads_automation_rule_list and ads_automation_run, though the term "KPI rule" itself is never defined.
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?
There is no guidance on when to create a rule versus listing or running one, no prerequisites (e.g. a valid campaign_id), and no mention of the cooldown semantics. The agent must infer all usage conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.