Skip to main content
Glama

vivid-ads-commerce

by au.com.vividads

vivid_artwork

Attach a customer-provided artwork file or link to a signage order (a successful attach does NOT mean it is print-ready — the team still checks it). EASIEST: pass a shareable link to the file (sourceUrl) — Google Drive, Dropbox, WeTransfer, etc. — and use the returned fileUrl in vivid_place_order's artwork {mode:'upload_file', fileUrl}. For a large file with no link yet, set requestUpload:true to get a direct-upload URL (the file uploads straight to storage — handles 50–200MB+), then call again with the returned fileId to get the share link.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileIdNoafter a direct upload completes, pass the returned file id here to finalise and get the share link
filenameNofilename (required with requestUpload), e.g. 'flyer.pdf'
sourceUrlNoa shareable https link to the print-ready artwork (PDF/PNG/JPG/AI/EPS) — the easiest path
contentTypeNo
requestUploadNoset true to get a direct-upload URL for a large file (client uploads straight to storage)

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only provide hints, but the description adds critical behavioral context: a successful attach does not mean print-ready, the tool handles 50-200MB+ files, and uploads go straight to storage. It also mentions the two-step process for large files, which is important side-effect information not visible in 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph, but it is well organized with 'EASIEST' and 'For a large file' guiding the reader. It front-loads the purpose and every sentence adds value. Slightly long, but appropriate for the two workflows described.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does a good job explaining return values ('returned fileUrl', 'returned fileId') and how to chain calls. It covers both primary workflows and gives enough context for an agent to execute correctly. The mention of integration with vivid_place_order rounds out the context.

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 80% (4/5 params described). The description adds workflow meaning beyond the schema: it explains the relationship between sourceUrl, requestUpload, and fileId (e.g., requestUpload:true gets a URL, then call again with fileId). However, contentType remains undocumented in both schema and description, so it isn't fully compensated.

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: 'Attach a customer-provided artwork file or link to a signage order.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like vivid_check_artwork (checking) and vivid_upload_artwork (raw upload) by focusing on attaching to an order and integrating with vivid_place_order.

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 explicitly provides two usage paths with conditions: the easiest path via sourceUrl, and an alternative for large files using requestUpload:true. It also tells the agent exactly what to do with the returned fileUrl in vivid_place_order, making the decision between this tool and others clear.

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

All vivid-ads-commerce toolsInspect
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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, particularly order status (vivid_order_status vs vivid_fulfilment_order_status vs vivid_fulfilment_production_stage) and artwork handling (vivid_artwork vs vivid_upload_artwork). An agent could easily select the wrong one without careful reading of the descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the consistent 'vivid_' prefix and snake_case format. However, the second part mixes verb-noun patterns (place_order, check_artwork) with noun-based names (price, product, order_status), so the pattern isn't fully uniform but is still predictable and readable.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, the server is at the heavy end of the borderline range. The broad scope (product discovery, pricing, ordering, artwork, fulfilment statuses, support) justifies most tools, but some overlapping status/artwork tools could be consolidated to reduce clutter.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the entire customer journey from product search, configuration, pricing, quoting, ordering, artwork upload/check, proof tracking, production/delivery status, to reordering. Minor gaps like explicit order update/cancel tools are missing, but support_answer covers those topics and the lifecycle is otherwise well-covered.

Resources