Read aggregate Microsoft Advertising campaign metrics by date range or preset without writing to the account, enabling safe performance reporting and review.
Read aggregate Microsoft Advertising campaign metrics through the official read-only MCP. This tool never writes to Microsoft Ads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| preset | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| module_id | No | ||
| tool_name | No | ||
| account_id | No | ||
| customer_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is read-only and never writes, but says nothing about authentication requirements, date-range defaults, aggregation behavior, pagination, rate limits, or response shape. The read-only statement is valuable but far from complete for an 8-parameter reporting tool.
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 and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence reinforces the read-only safety property, which is useful given missing annotations, though it is somewhat redundant with 'read aggregate'.
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 tool with eight parameters, zero required fields, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, two sentences are not enough. The description establishes the safety profile but leaves an agent without enough information to choose arguments correctly or understand defaults and return data.
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% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning at all. It does not explain from/to date formats, preset choices, currency, module_id, tool_name, account_id, or customer_id, leaving all eight parameters undocumented.
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: reading aggregate Microsoft Advertising campaign metrics. It also distinguishes itself from write/sync tools by saying it is read-only and never writes to Microsoft Ads. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full sibling 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 description implies this is the reporting/read path, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no named alternatives such as ads_microsoft_ads_sync. An agent must infer that this is for reporting rather than syncing or writing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.