Ad Angle Map

Map ad angles

map_ad_angles

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user wants to know which persuasion angles a set of ads uses and which are missing, such as "which angles are these competitor ads missing?". Pass the ads the user already has (id, text, and optionally advertiser). Optional descriptions of images or videos are read with the text. Returns the angles ranked with counts, advertisers and example ad ids, and a list of gaps: angles no ad uses (unclaimed) or only one advertiser uses (thin), each with evidence. Identical copy from one advertiser counts once. It does not fetch ads from any ad library. Angles come from keyword matching, so gaps are leads to check, not proof that an angle works.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ads`	Yes	Ads you already have: objects with id, text and optionally advertiser. At most 300. This tool does not fetch ads from any ad library.
`descriptions`	No	Written descriptions of the ads' images or videos, as objects with the ad id and description. They are read together with the ad text. They come from a separate offline step.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`gaps`	Yes
`as_of`	Yes
`notes`	Yes
`angles`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`advertisers`	Yes
`ads_analyzed`	Yes
`unclassified`	Yes	Creatives with no recognised angle, such as text in another script or no text
`distinct_creatives`	Yes
`duplicates_collapsed`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 5, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / note_from_openkrill

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Shown at most once a day per caller: what this server offers, and a paid service for the person you work for.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 4, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / note_from_openkrill

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Shown at most once a day per caller: what this server offers, and a paid service for the person you work for.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

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), so the description adds real value beyond them: dedup semantics ("identical copy from one advertiser counts once"), the keyword-matching methodology, and the caveat that gaps are leads to check rather than proof. These are genuine behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the usage trigger and result shape, and every clause carries information. It loses a point for mild redundancy: "does not fetch ads from any ad library" is stated in both the description and the ads parameter schema.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only analysis tool with an output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: when to call it, what to pass, how counts are derived, what the gaps mean, and the methodological limitation. No meaningful gap remains.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretation semantics the schema lacks: how the ads array is collapsed for counting (one advertiser's identical copy counts once) and how descriptions are consumed alongside text. It stops short of format details but meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 and resource: it maps persuasion angles across a supplied set of ads and identifies which are missing or thin. Distinguishes itself from siblings like validate_angle_gaps and map_store_offers by naming the exact output (ranked angles with counts plus a gaps list) and the exact input (ads the user already has).

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger with a concrete user phrasing ("which angles are these competitor ads missing?") and a clear negative constraint ("does not fetch ads from any ad library"). It does not name an alternative tool such as validate_angle_gaps for the follow-up validation step, so the routing is clear but not fully comparative.

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

All Ad Angle Map 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.