List advertising projects and filter by active or archived status to find the projects you need for campaign management and reporting.
List projects, optionally filtered by active or archived status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | 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. "List" implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose pagination, default limit behavior, ordering, authentication needs, or whether archived projects are excluded by default.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the operation and the optional filter.
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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits limit semantics, default status behavior, return shape, and pagination, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.
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 both parameters need explanation. The description mentions the status enum values active/archived, but it says nothing about the limit parameter beyond what the schema already constrains numerically, and it does not explain defaults or filtering behavior.
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: "List projects," with an optional status filter. It is clear enough to distinguish this from get/create/update siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
It indicates that status filtering is optional and names the two filter values, which implies a basic usage context. However, it does not say when to use this instead of ads_project_get or other project tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.