select_accountSwitch the active Telegram Ads cabinet by owner_id to fix a wrong or Stars account. Requires confirm=true under strict gate, then call get_account.
Switch the active ad cabinet by owner_id from list_accounts. Use when the wrong or a Stars cabinet is active. Writes: confirm=true under gate strict. Then call get_account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| owner_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / confirmAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "title": "Confirm",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations confirm a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the write-gating mechanic ('confirm=true under gate strict') and the required post-step. It does not explain what happens when confirm is omitted or whether the switch is reversible.
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 short, front-loaded sentences that open with the action and then layer condition, mechanics, and follow-up with no filler. The compressed 'Writes: confirm=true under gate strict' phrasing is terse jargon that slightly taxes readability.
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 two-parameter state-switching tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers the action, the trigger, the parameter source, the write gating, and the recommended follow-up call. Nothing essential 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does explain both parameters: owner_id is sourced from `list_accounts`, and confirm is the write-gate flag enabled under strict gating. It leaves the confirm=false default behavior unstated.
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 ('Switch the active ad cabinet') and names the source of the key parameter ('by owner_id from `list_accounts`'), which distinguishes it from the list/get siblings. An agent can tell exactly what state this tool changes without inspecting the 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?
Gives an explicit trigger ('Use when the wrong or a Stars cabinet is active') and a follow-up step ('Then call `get_account`'). It does not state when not to use it or name an alternative switching path, so it falls short of a full routing guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.