Preview proposed Apple Ads ad-group changes before applying them, including status, bid strategy, and targeting updates.
Preview an ad-group update.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | target resource ID as a string | |
| payload | Yes | typed fields to update | |
| profile | Yes | local Apple Ads profile name | |
| adAccountId | Yes | Apple Ads ad account ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| preview | No | ||
| summary | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the non-mutating nature is covered. The description adds little beyond the name and annotations: it does not explain that the payload is validated without being applied, what preview result is produced, or how it relates to an eventual apply step.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of fluff. It is efficient, though its brevity means it is underspecified for a complex nested update payload; that gap is better reflected in contextual completeness.
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?
This is a complex update-preview tool with a large nested payload and many sibling preview tools. The output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety, but the description does not explain partial-vs-full update semantics, validation behavior, or when this generic preview should be used instead of the specialized ones.
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 100%, so the complex payload fields, targeting structure, and deprecated cpaCap are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, but the baseline is 3 when the schema already carries this burden.
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 verb and resource ('Preview an ad-group update'), so the general purpose is inferable. However, it does not clarify what a preview means here or distinguish this broad update preview from siblings such as ad_group_targeting_preview, ad_group_bid_preview, or ad_group_cpa_cap_preview.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than the more specific ad-group preview tools or when a preview is required before an update. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.