Preview pausing a single Apple Ads ad before committing the change, so you can verify the target and avoid unintended pauses.
Preview pausing one ad.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds almost nothing beyond restating the tool name; it does not explain what the preview returns, whether it mutates state, or what happens after previewing.
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 four-word description is maximally front-loaded and wastes no space, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. Brevity here sacrifices necessary context for a tool with three required parameters.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover read-only/idempotent semantics. Still missing is guidance on how the preview fits into the broader workflow (e.g., pairing with operations_apply) and what preview results represent.
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 67%, with 'id' undocumented in the schema. The description provides no parameter meaning, formats, or constraints, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap on the required 'id' field.
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 ('Preview pausing') and resource ('one ad'), which distinguishes it from ad_resume_preview, ad_delete_preview, and ad_update_preview. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from vaguely named siblings like ad_get or operations_inspect.
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?
No guidance on when to use this instead of ad_pause_preview's alternatives, whether it must be followed by operations_apply, or what conditions make preview appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.