A
license-
qualityF
maintenanceMCP server for Google AdSense management. Create ad units, generate framework-specific ad code, manage earnings reports, and automate ads.txt — all from your AI assistant.
Last updated
5
MIT
Ezoic Setup Assistant
by com.ezoic
Server Details
Ezoic ads implementation assistant: integration docs, SDKs, and working, copyable setup code.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.1/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: ask initiates a query job, help provides orientation, read_response streams job output, and request_status checks job progress. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: single verbs (ask, help) and verb_noun combinations (read_response, request_status), all lowercase with underscores for multi-word names.
Tool Count5/5
With 4 tools covering the core workflow of asking questions and retrieving responses asynchronously, the count is well-scoped and appropriate for the server's purpose.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface fully covers the expected lifecycle: initiate a job (ask), check its status (request_status), and retrieve the result (read_response), plus help. No obvious gaps given the domain.
Available Tools
4 toolsaskAInspect
Ask the agent. Full pipeline (schema, queries, analysis). Sync within deadline_seconds; else {status:pending,job_id} — poll request_status/read_response. Pass a stable thread id (UUID) on every call for conversation context.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | Optional role override; defaults to admin for MCP callers. | |
| agent | No | Bundle name. Inferred from the Host header when missing. | |
| thread | No | Persistent conversation id. Either `thread` or the legacy `thread_id` alias must be set. | |
| message | No | User prompt for the agent. Either `message` or the legacy `question` alias must be set. | |
| question | No | Legacy apples-compat alias for `message`. Ignored when `message` is set. | |
| thread_id | No | Legacy apples-compat alias for `thread`. Ignored when `thread` is set. | |
| deadline_seconds | No | Synchronous wait budget. Default 240. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations lack behavioral details (only readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). Description adds critical behavioral traits: sync/async pipeline, timeout handling, and return format {status:pending, job_id}. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with core action. Every sentence serves a purpose: define tool, explain sync/async, emphasize thread requirement. No redundant or verbose phrasing.
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?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers overall behavior, sync/async, and threading. Could briefly describe what 'Full pipeline' entails, but the essential context for using the tool is present. Minor gap in explaining default behavior if deadline_seconds not set.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline 3. Description adds some context like 'Pass a stable thread id (UUID)' but largely repeats schema descriptions (e.g., role override, thread alias). Does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond 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?
Description starts with 'Ask the agent' which clearly states the action and resource. It elaborates with 'Full pipeline (schema, queries, analysis)' and differentiates from sibling tools (help, read_response, request_status) by mentioning sync/async behavior and polling mechanism.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use synchronous vs asynchronous mode based on deadline_seconds, and instructs to poll request_status/read_response for pending jobs. Also specifies to pass a stable thread id for conversation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
helpARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Short orientation text for apples MCP callers.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it provides 'orientation text.' No contradictions, but no additional disclosure.
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, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, high annotation coverage), the description is functionally complete but lacks details on the content or format of the orientation text, leaving the agent somewhat uninformed.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining the tool's output (orientation text), which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.
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 clearly states the tool provides 'short orientation text for apples MCP callers,' specifying the verb ('provide orientation') and resource ('text'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (ask, read_response, request_status) by implying general help rather than specific actions.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
read_responseARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Stream a chunk of a pending ask() job's output.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Job id returned by a prior ask() call. | |
| offset | No | Byte offset to start reading from. 0 for the beginning. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds context that it streams chunks of pending jobs, but doesn't detail behaviors like error handling or rate limits.
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?
Single sentence, directly front-loaded with core purpose, no wasted words.
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?
For a simple read tool with good annotations and schema, the description is nearly complete. Could mention that offset is optional, but overall sufficient.
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 coverage is 100% so both parameters are fully described in the schema. Description adds no further semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Description clearly states the tool streams a chunk of output from a pending ask() job, specifying the action (stream), resource (output of pending job), and distinguishing from sibling tools ask and request_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage after ask() to read output, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, nor situations to avoid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
request_statusARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Check the status of a pending ask() job.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | Job id returned by a prior ask() call that went async. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety traits. Description adds no further behavioral context beyond 'check status', which is consistent but not additive.
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?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Information is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
For a simple status-check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. Could optionally mention polling behavior or possible statuses, but not required.
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 covers 100% of parameters with description. Description adds context that job_id comes from a prior async ask() call, which clarifies the parameter's origin beyond 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?
Description clearly states the verb 'check' and resource 'status of a pending ask() job', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'ask' (creates jobs) and 'read_response' (retrieves final results).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage after an async ask() call but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_response' for final results. No usage exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceIntegrates PropellerAds' programmatic advertising platform with AI to automate campaign management, real-time optimization, and performance analysis. It enables users to create, scale, and manage ad campaigns through natural language commands for tasks like bid adjustment and zone blacklisting.Last updated213MIT
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceConnects Google AdSense to MCP clients like Claude and Cursor, enabling earnings summaries, detailed reports, site status checks, and more via natural language.Last updated154MIT
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server providing full read and write control over Google Ads, enabling AI assistants to build campaigns, fix targeting, rewrite ads, and manage bidding strategies without opening a browser.Last updatedMIT