google_ads_account_infoRetrieve Google Ads account name, currency, time zone, and MCC status to verify connectivity and confirm currency before adjusting budgets. Read-only.
顧客アカウントの名前・通貨・タイムゾーン・MCC かどうかを返す。**読み取り専用。**疎通確認と、予算を触る前の通貨確認に使う。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| customer_id | No | 対象の顧客 ID（ハイフン有無どちらでも可）。省略時は GOOGLE_ADS_CUSTOMER_ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bolded 読み取り専用 is largely redundant. However, since there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields (name/currency/timezone/MCC flag) supplies genuinely useful behavioral context about what the call returns.
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 sentences with zero waste; the return fields are front-loaded, the read-only property is emphasized, and the usage cues follow. Nothing is padded.
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 single-optional-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, returns, and usage contexts adequately. It could be marginally richer (e.g. behavior on unresolved customer_id), but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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?
The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including the hyphen-optional format and the GOOGLE_ADS_CUSTOMER_ID fallback, so the schema fully carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about customer_id, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 concrete verb (返す) and enumerates the exact resource fields returned — name, currency, timezone, and MCC status — so an agent knows precisely what this tool yields. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the enumerated fields make the tool's scope unambiguous against the many mutation/report siblings.
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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions: 疎通確認 (connectivity/smoke check) and 通貨確認 before touching budgets. That is clear situational guidance. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.