Show server version, safety mode, API family, and response limits to verify the Apple Ads MCP environment before running research, reporting, or campaign actions.
Show server version, safety mode, API family, and response limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | payload | |
| error | No | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| rateLimit | No | ||
| pagination | No |
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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds value by disclosing what this read exposes — notably 'safety mode' and 'response limits', which are behavioral facts (whether the server is in a dry-run/live mode, and throttling ceilings) that an agent needs and that no annotation conveys.
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 front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the four returned facts enumerated compactly. Zero filler and nothing repeated from the name or annotations.
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?
With zero parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, this description is nearly sufficient — it tells the agent what category of information it receives. The remaining gap is situational: it never says when this diagnostic is warranted relative to auth_check or the other account-level tools.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly describes a no-argument call and adds no misleading input expectations.
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 (Show) and enumerates exactly what is reported: server version, safety mode, API family, and response limits. That is far better than a tautology, but it never distinguishes it from the nearby diagnostic sibling auth_check, so an agent cannot route between the two from the description alone.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs to know the server's safety mode or limits before performing mutations, but that inference is never stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.