Inside Ads

create_campaign_draft

Build a ready-to-launch ad campaign for a product WITHOUT the user having an account yet. Parses the landing page, generates ad creatives, and returns a single checkout link. Give that link to the user: they sign in there, the campaign moves to their account, they pay, and it starts. Use this after estimate_campaign, once the user agreed to advertise. Do NOT ask them to register first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`geo`	No	Optional ISO-2 country target, e.g. "US"
`url`	Yes	Landing page URL of the product to promote (required)
`lang`	No	Optional audience language, e.g. "en"
`budget`	No	Intended budget in USD, used for the estimate shown to the user
`description`	No	What the product does, in your own words — improves topic matching

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`draftId`	Yes	Poll get_draft_status with this to see whether the user paid.
`estimate`	No	Same shape as estimate_campaign, for the budget given.
`expiresAt`	Yes	ISO timestamp after which the link stops working.
`adsCreated`	No	How many ad variants were generated.
`campaignId`	No
`checkoutUrl`	Yes	THE link to give the user. One click: sign in, review creatives, pay.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: parsing the landing page, generating ad creatives, returning a checkout link, and the post-flow authentication. However, it omits details about idempotency, error scenarios, or potential side effects like rate limits or resource cleanup, leaving a small gap in transparency.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise (about 80 words) and structured well. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose and key constraint. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the parameter complexity (5 params, all optional except url), the presence of an output schema, and two sibling tools, the description covers the essential workflow and integration points. It does not detail the output schema (unnecessary due to its existence) but could briefly mention expected return type or edge cases. Still, it is nearly complete for the tool's role.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds mild context beyond schema: it links 'url' to page parsing and 'description' to topic matching. It does not add new semantics for 'geo', 'lang', or 'budget' beyond their schema descriptions, so it only marginally enhances understanding.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Build a ready-to-launch ad campaign' and specifies the resource 'for a product'. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by noting this tool is used after 'estimate_campaign' and that it works without a user account, avoiding confusion with 'get_draft_status'.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit context: 'Use this after estimate_campaign, once the user agreed to advertise. Do NOT ask them to register first.' It clearly states the ordering and the condition under which this tool should be invoked, leaving no ambiguity about its place in the workflow.

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

All Inside Ads tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct phase of the campaign workflow: estimate_campaign for initial feasibility, create_campaign_draft for generating the draft, and get_draft_status for tracking progress. There is no overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (estimate_campaign, create_campaign_draft, get_draft_status), making the action and object immediately clear.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is appropriately scoped for the service: a pre-flight estimate, a creation step, and a status check. No tool feels redundant or missing for the agent's role.

Completeness4/5

The tools cover the core workflow (estimate → create → check status) completely for the agent's interaction. The only minor gap is lacking a way to modify or cancel a draft before the user acts, but the designed flow is linear and doesn't require it.

Resources

Need Help?