Lovie Company Formation

Summarize Campaign Window

ads_insight_summarize_campaign_window

SummarizeCampaignWindow summarises one charge against the campaigns in its billing window. Results are cached per company + account + window + charge, so repeated panel opens do not re-run the agent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`provider`	No
`accountId`	No
`companyId`	No
`periodEnd`	No
`periodStart`	No
`chargeAmount`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cached`	No
`summary`	No
`highlights`	No
`generatedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 10, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / provider / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "PROVIDER_UNSPECIFIED",
-  "PROVIDER_PLAID",
-  "PROVIDER_STRIPE",
-  "PROVIDER_RAMP",
-  "PROVIDER_GOOGLE_ADS",
-  "PROVIDER_META_ADS",
-  "PROVIDER_MERCURY",
-  "PROVIDER_GMAIL",
-  "PROVIDER_SLACK",
-  "PROVIDER_TIKTOK_ADS",
-  "PROVIDER_SHOPIFY",
-  "PROVIDER_HUBSPOT",
-  "PROVIDER_X_ADS",
-  "PROVIDER_DOCUSIGN"
-]New value: +[
+  "PROVIDER_PLAID",
+  "PROVIDER_STRIPE",
+  "PROVIDER_RAMP",
+  "PROVIDER_GOOGLE_ADS",
+  "PROVIDER_META_ADS",
+  "PROVIDER_MERCURY",
+  "PROVIDER_GMAIL",
+  "PROVIDER_SLACK",
+  "PROVIDER_TIKTOK_ADS",
+  "PROVIDER_SHOPIFY",
+  "PROVIDER_HUBSPOT",
+  "PROVIDER_X_ADS",
+  "PROVIDER_DOCUSIGN"
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / generatedAt / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "format": "date-time",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / generatedAt / format
```
Removed value: -"date-time"
```
removedOutput schema / properties / generatedAt / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

Changed1 schema field changedAug 17, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / provider / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "PROVIDER_UNSPECIFIED",
-  "PROVIDER_PLAID",
-  "PROVIDER_STRIPE",
-  "PROVIDER_RAMP",
-  "PROVIDER_GOOGLE_ADS",
-  "PROVIDER_META_ADS",
-  "PROVIDER_MERCURY",
-  "PROVIDER_GMAIL",
-  "PROVIDER_SLACK",
-  "PROVIDER_TIKTOK_ADS",
-  "PROVIDER_SHOPIFY",
-  "PROVIDER_HUBSPOT",
-  "PROVIDER_X_ADS"
-]New value: +[
+  "PROVIDER_UNSPECIFIED",
+  "PROVIDER_PLAID",
+  "PROVIDER_STRIPE",
+  "PROVIDER_RAMP",
+  "PROVIDER_GOOGLE_ADS",
+  "PROVIDER_META_ADS",
+  "PROVIDER_MERCURY",
+  "PROVIDER_GMAIL",
+  "PROVIDER_SLACK",
+  "PROVIDER_TIKTOK_ADS",
+  "PROVIDER_SHOPIFY",
+  "PROVIDER_HUBSPOT",
+  "PROVIDER_X_ADS",
+  "PROVIDER_DOCUSIGN"
+]

First observedAug 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: results are cached per company + account + window + charge, and repeated panel opens do not re-run the agent. This is genuinely useful beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose and scoping constraints are front-loaded, and the caching behavior is a relevant secondary detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety profile, but the description omits usage routing versus sibling tools and leaves parameter semantics almost entirely to parameter names. With six optional parameters and zero schema descriptions, an agent cannot confidently construct a correct invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for six parameters. The description indirectly maps 'company + account + window + charge' to likely parameters, but it does not explain provider semantics, date formats, optionality, chargeAmount syntax, or what happens when parameters are omitted. It only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Description uses a specific verb ('summarises') and identifies the resource: one charge against the campaigns in its billing window. This is more specific than the title and implies a distinct role from the per-provider get_campaign_window siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely related per-provider siblings (google_ads_metrics_get_google_ads_campaign_window, meta_ads_metrics_get_meta_ads_campaign_window, etc.). The caching note hints at a UI/panel context, but it never states selection conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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

All Lovie Company Formation 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.