StealAds

Get tracking status

get_tracking_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the tracking state of one saved competitor: whether tracking is on, the paid-through date, the next scheduled scan, the last successful scan and the latest scan's status. For checking before start_tracking, pause_tracking or scan_competitor, and for seeing whether a requested scan has finished.

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": {
      "competitor_id": "<competitor_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_tracking_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`competitor_id`	Yes	Competitor id from list_competitors.
`response_format`	No	Output format: text (default) or json. table is not available for this tool.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`latestScan`	No	latestScan value in this response.
`nextScanAt`	No	nextScanAt value in this response.
`competitorId`	No	competitorId value in this response.
`paidThroughMs`	No	paidThroughMs value in this response.
`trackingEnabled`	No	trackingEnabled value in this response.
`lastSuccessfulScanAt`	No	lastSuccessfulScanAt value in this response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 10, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / competitor_id / description

Previous value: -"Competitor reference from list_competitors (e.g. the returned competitor id)."New value: +"Competitor id from list_competitors."

changedInput schema / properties / response_format / description

Previous value: -"Output format: text or json for capped research examples; table is available only for tracked rival rows."New value: +"Output format: text (default) or json. table is not available for this tool."

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does 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 and the description does not need to repeat it. What it adds is the pre-mutation read pattern and the scan-completion check, which is genuine behavioral context. It stops short of saying what happens for an unknown or untracked competitor_id.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the return payload is stated first, then the usage routing. Nothing is repeated from the title or the annotations.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description need not explain return values or safety, and it covers the decision points an agent needs. The only gap is edge behavior (nonexistent competitor, competitor not yet tracked), which an agent might reasonably want before calling.

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 both competitor_id and response_format are already documented in the schema, including the note that table is unavailable. The description only reinforces that the target is 'one saved competitor' rather than adding syntax or format meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Returns the tracking state of one saved competitor') and then enumerates exactly what state is included: on/off, paid-through date, next scheduled scan, last successful scan, and latest scan status. That is far more precise than the title and lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_ad_status or get_automation_status.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly names the alternatives it pairs with ('before start_tracking, pause_tracking or scan_competitor') and adds a second use case (checking whether a requested scan has finished). There is no explicit when-not guidance or scoping exclusion, but the 'one saved competitor' phrasing bounds it adequately.

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

All StealAds tools Inspect

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.