Retrieve locally stored advertising campaigns and filter them by project or lifecycle status to review draft, active, paused, completed, or archived work.
List local campaigns, optionally filtered by project and lifecycle status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| project_id | 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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read operation via 'List'. Nothing is said about ordering, pagination behavior, default page size, or whether all campaigns or only the caller's are returned.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though brevity here edges into under-specification rather than tightness.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters, the description should carry much more. As written, an agent cannot tell the default page size, the meaning of 'source', or how results are ordered.
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%, so the description must define all four parameters. It only gestures at two of them (project -> project_id, lifecycle status -> status) and says nothing about 'limit' or 'source', leaving non-obvious fields undocumented in both places.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (list local campaigns) and scopes it to 'local', which separates it from the platform-specific campaign tools like ads_yandex_direct_create_campaign or ads_telegram_ads_api_create_ad. It does not explicitly point at the obvious siblings (ads_campaign_get, ads_campaign_create/update), so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 phrase 'optionally filtered by project and lifecycle status' implies the retrieval use case, but there is no statement of when to use this versus ads_campaign_get or ads_campaign_analytics, and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.