Skip to main content
Glama

Growomat

by com.growomat

List ads

list_ads
Read-only

List ads across visible campaigns. Pass campaign_id or ad_group_id to scope the result server-side (recommended — otherwise the whole Space is returned and can overflow the response budget). Scoped to the active Space — see set_active_space to switch, or pass space_id to override for this one call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax items to return. Default 50, max 200.
cursorNoOpaque pagination cursor returned by the previous page in meta.nextCursor.
space_idNoOverride the active Space for this one call. Defaults to the active Space set via set_active_space (or GROWOMAT_SPACE_ID on the server). Pass to read/write a different Space without changing the session binding.
ad_group_idNoOnly return ads in this ad group (server-side scope).
campaign_idNoOnly return ads in this campaign (server-side scope).

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the risk of response overflow when unscoped, the 'visible campaigns' filter, and the active Space scoping semantics with override capability. This goes beyond the annotation without contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place: the first sentence defines the action, the second explains scoping and overflow risk. No redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's read-only nature, 100% schema coverage for parameters, and absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers scoping, response size risk, and Space behavior. Minor gaps include the unspecified interaction when both campaign_id and ad_group_id are provided, but overall it is complete enough for selection and invocation.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the recommended use of campaign_id or ad_group_id and the consequence of omitting them, which is not fully captured in the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 'List ads across visible campaigns' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing itself from sibling tools like get_ad, list_ad_groups, and list_campaigns by focusing on the ads collection. The mention of scoping options adds further precision.

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?

Explicitly recommends passing campaign_id or ad_group_id to scope results server-side and warns that omitting them returns the whole Space, which can overflow the response budget. It also instructs users on managing the active Space via set_active_space and the space_id override, providing clear context but no explicit comparison to alternative list tools.

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

All Growomat 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern (get_ad, update_ad, delete_ad), so entity-level tools are easy to distinguish. The main ambiguity is among reporting/status tools like get_conversion_status, get_conversion_health, get_conversion_report, and account_summary vs. get_performance_stats, which could tempt misselection without reading descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

Naming is highly consistent: nearly every resource has create_/get_/update_/delete_/list_ variants, with predictable special verbs like set_, trigger_, preview_, and upload_. Minor exceptions like account_summary or get_angle_readout still follow the same readable verb-driven style.

Tool Count1/5

83 tools is an extreme surface for an MCP server, even one covering ad management. Most entities have full CRUD plus many custom readouts and report variants, which creates context bloat and makes tool selection unnecessarily expensive for the agent.

Completeness4/5

The platform covers the full campaign lifecycle: campaigns, ad groups, ads, keywords, assets, business/creative planes, conversion actions, sync, budget, and targeting are all represented. Minor gaps exist—conversion sources have create/list but no get/update/delete, and there is no explicit way to update or remove a conversion source—but these can be worked around.

Resources