Preview creating a targeting keyword for an Apple Ads ad group before submission, so you can verify match type, status, and bid settings.
Preview creation of one targeting keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | typed create payload for the resource | |
| 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, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say the preview persists nothing, whether it validates against the ad account, or what the agent should do with the preview output before applying it.
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 sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the key distinction that this is a preview. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the missing guidance rather than a virtue of tight writing.
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 and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values and mutation risk need not be explained. However, for a tool sitting inside a large preview/apply workflow with a deeply nested payload, the description should at least indicate that this is a dry run whose result feeds a subsequent apply step.
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 100% and the nested payload properties are typed (matchType, status enum, bid object with amount/currency pattern), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no meaning about required fields, matchType values, or bid semantics, so 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?
States a specific verb+resource: previewing creation of a single targeting keyword. The word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the bulk siblings (keywords_bulk_create_preview), but no sibling is named explicitly and there is no mention of the singular create vs update distinction being spelled out.
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 when-to-use guidance beyond the implied 'preview' framing. Nothing tells the agent how this relates to keywords_bulk_create_preview, keyword_update_preview, or the operations_apply/operations_verify siblings that presumably consume the preview result.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.