Preview resuming a specific Apple Ads campaign before applying changes, using a profile, ad account ID, and campaign ID to verify the intended campaign.
Preview resuming one campaign.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | Yes | local Apple Ads profile name | |
| campaignId | Yes | campaign ID as a string | |
| 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds nothing beyond that: it never says the call makes no changes, whether the campaign must currently be paused, or what the preview response contains, all of which are the key behavioral facts for a preview tool.
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?
A single short sentence with the key qualifier ('preview') front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail scored elsewhere.
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?
The output schema and annotations are present, so return values need not be spelled out, but the one concept that actually needs explaining for this tool — what 'preview' means relative to applying the resume — is absent. For a 3-required-parameter mutation-preview in a large sibling family, this leaves a real conceptual gap.
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%; all three parameters (profile, adAccountId, campaignId) are documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning such as ID format, profile resolution, or how adAccountId scopes campaignId, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
"Preview resuming one campaign" states a specific verb (preview/resume) and a specific resource (one campaign), which cleanly separates it from siblings like campaign_pause_preview and campaign_delete_preview. It stops short of explaining what a 'preview' actually produces, but the action being modeled is unambiguous.
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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives, nor any mention of the obvious pairing with operations_apply or campaign_get. The agent must infer that a preview is a dry-run that precedes an apply step, and that this is the campaign-level (not ad group or keyword-level) resume path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.