get_adsList, filter, and paginate Telegram Ads account ads to get status, spent, CPM, and budget for overviews.
List ads, 100 per page, status=any|active|on_hold. Use for account overviews; for one ad use get_ad. Paginate with offset_id=next_offset_id. Returns ads with status, spent, cpm, budget.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| detail | No | summary | |
| status | No | any | |
| offset_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Input schema / properties / detailAdded value: +{
+ "default": "summary",
+ "enum": [
+ "summary",
+ "full"
+ ],
+ "title": "Detail",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: 100-per-page batching, the pagination loop via offset_id=next_offset_id, and the returned fields. It stops short of stating rate limits or truncation behavior, so not a 5.
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?
Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then usage, then pagination mechanics. Every clause earns its place with no filler.
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 an output schema present, the return-field mention is a bonus rather than a requirement, and pagination plus filtering are covered. The only real gap is the unexplained `detail` parameter, which an agent would have to guess at.
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 carries the burden. It explains offset_id (pagination continuation via next_offset_id) and repeats the status enum, but the 'detail' parameter (summary|full) is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters undocumented anywhere.
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 ads'), gives the page size, and names the sibling it is not ('for one ad use `get_ad`'). An agent can distinguish it from get_ad and get_ads-adjacent list tools without opening a schema.
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?
Explicitly scopes usage ('Use for account overviews') and routes to the alternative ('for one ad use `get_ad`'). The when-to-use condition and the competing tool are both named, leaving nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.