Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Apogee: Bulk Ad Launcher for Meta, TikTok & Snapchat

by ad.apogee
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Cross-platform copies: performance per creative

get_bridge_stats
Read-onlyIdempotent

How each copied creative performs on Meta, TikTok and Snapchat, side by side. The Bridge's Stats tab: each creative bridged from a Meta ad account (yours, and others' sent to accounts you hold too), newest first: its source ad on Meta next to its copies on TikTok and Snapchat over since → until (7-day click attribution on every platform). Per platform: status (ok, no_target = never bridged there, not_connected = that account is not connected to this Apogee account, error), the ads, inputs (raw sums) and kpis (spend, revenue, ROAS, CPM, CTR, CPC, cost per purchase, hook and hold rates…), each in its own ad account's currency: never add platforms together.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "source_ad_account_id": "<source_ad_account_id>",
      "since": "<since>",
      "until": "<until>"
    },
    "name": "get_bridge_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sinceYesFirst day, YYYY-MM-DD
untilYesLast day, YYYY-MM-DD
source_ad_account_idYesThe Meta ad account the ads were bridged from (act_…)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description layers on genuinely non-obvious behavior: the enumerated per-platform status values (ok, no_target, not_connected, error), 7-day click attribution on every platform, newest-first ordering, and per-ad-account currency. The 'never add platforms together' warning prevents a realistic misuse that nothing in the schema or annotations conveys.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Information is front-loaded, but the body is one dense, semicolon-and-colon-chained paragraph with heavy parenthetical lists (metrics, status codes, currency caveat) that is hard to scan. Almost every clause carries signal, yet the packaging works against fast comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return structure in detail: per-platform status, ads, raw inputs, and the KPI set (spend, revenue, ROAS, CPM, CTR, CPC, cost per purchase, hook/hold rates). Combined with the currency and attribution rules, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so dates and the source ad account ID are already documented, and the description largely restates them (source Meta ad account, since→until window). It adds the attribution model applied to that window, which is useful, but does not add syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource: per-creative performance of Meta ads bridged to TikTok and Snapchat, across platforms. The scope (source Meta ad account, date window, per-platform status/KPIs) is precise enough that an agent can distinguish it from generic performance tools. It stops short of naming siblings like get_bridge_daily_stats or get_platform_performance, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the 'Bridge's Stats tab' framing and the per-creative side-by-side scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion rule, and no pointer to the nearest alternative (daily bridge stats vs. per-creative bridge stats). An agent can infer the case but must reason about it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Apogee: Bulk Ad Launcher for Meta, TikTok & Snapchat toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources