Accepts the current AdsMCP Free Use Rules for a local data directory after user review, requiring explicit confirmation.
Accept the current AdsMCP Free Use Rules for this local data directory. Review ads_free_use_rules first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be true after the user has reviewed the rules. | |
| rules_version | No | Expected rules version, currently 1.0. |
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 must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the local-directory scope and the prerequisite review step, but it does not explain what acceptance records, whether it is persistent or reversible, or what permissions or side effects are involved.
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 two short sentences with the action and scope front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite. Every sentence carries useful routing or procedural information.
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 description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: review the rules first, then call with confirm=true. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it remains thin on what acceptance actually changes or returns.
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%, and the schema already explains that confirm must be true after review and that rules_version is currently 1.0. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Accept the current AdsMCP Free Use Rules', and scopes it to 'this local data directory'. It also distinguishes the action from the sibling ads_free_use_rules by explicitly directing the agent to review that tool first.
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 sentence 'Review ads_free_use_rules first' gives an explicit prerequisite and names the sibling tool to use before this one. It effectively tells the agent both when to use this tool and which alternative action must precede it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.