Skip to main content
Glama

TunnelMind Data API

sigil_verify_ads_txt_batch

Runs up to 100 ads.txt verifications in a single call — the endpoint an ad-buying agent uses for pre-bid checks across a whole campaign's supply. Each item is the same shape as sigil_verify_ads_txt. Per-item validation failures are reported inline; the batch never fails as a whole. Publisher records are fetched once per unique domain.

Use this tool when:

  • You are evaluating many supply paths at once (campaign setup, SPO sweep).

  • You want one round-trip instead of N calls to sigil_verify_ads_txt.

Inputs:

  • items (body, required): Array of 1–100 verification requests, each { publisher_domain, exchange_domain, seller_id, seller_type? }.

  • resolve_chain (body, optional): Applies to every item — when true, a matched RESELLER entry is cross-checked against the exchange's sellers.json.

Returns:

  • count: number of result entries (matches items length, in order).

  • verified_count: how many resolved to verified: true.

  • results: array aligned to items. Each entry is either a verification result with ok: true and input_index, or { ok: false, input_index, error, message } for an invalid item.

Cost:

  • Each item costs one rate-limit unit (the first is the request itself). A batch larger than the remaining budget is refused whole with 429 and charges nothing beyond that first unit, so the effective maximum per call is min(100, remaining + 1): anonymous 10/min, free 50/day, supporter 500/day, pro 5,000/day, enterprise unlimited.

Latency:

  • Typical: <150ms. With resolve_chain: true, add one sellers.json fetch per unique exchange (edge-cached 12h after the first fetch).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes1–100 verification requests
resolve_chainNoResolve reseller chains for every RESELLER item

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: per-item failures are inline, the batch never fails as a whole, publisher records are deduplicated per domain, oversize batches return 429 and charge only one unit, and resolve_chain adds a fetched sellers.json cached 12h. Rare, high-quality operational disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then clearly labelled Inputs/Returns/Cost/Latency sections. It is fairly long, but each section delivers distinct information an agent needs before calling a rate-limited batch endpoint, so nothing is padding.

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, yet the description documents the return structure (count, verified_count, ordered results with ok/input_index/error), plus cost and latency. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it spells out the per-item object shape, that resolve_chain applies to every item, and that it cross-checks RESELLER entries against the exchange's sellers.json. The 1–100 range constraint is reinforced in prose.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope ('Runs up to 100 ads.txt verifications in a single call') and explicitly frames itself as the bulk counterpart to sigil_verify_ads_txt. An agent can distinguish it from the single-item sibling and from sigil_verify_supply_chain without opening any schema.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Use this tool when' block naming two concrete scenarios (campaign setup, SPO sweep) and the alternative it replaces ('one round-trip instead of N calls to sigil_verify_ads_txt'). The selection condition is unambiguous.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources