Growomat

List disapprovals

list_disapprovals

Read-only

List every ad and keyword your connected ad platforms are NOT serving — disapproved, limited, or area-of-interest-only — for the active Space, each with its review status and the structured reasons / affected markets behind the decision. The cheapest way to answer "why isn't this ad running?" without paging through every ad and keyword. An empty list means nothing is disapproved, not that the tool failed. 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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`platform`	No	Restrict to one platform. Omit for all connected platforms.
`space_id`	No	Override 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.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable context: empty list means no disapprovals (not a failure), return data includes review status, structured reasons, and affected markets. It also discloses the scoping behavior and the space_id override option, which is not evident from annotations alone.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the efficiency hint, empty-list clarification, and scoping guidance. Each sentence serves a distinct informative function, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the call returns (review status, structured reasons, affected markets), clarifies empty results, and covers Space scoping and override. It provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional information.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both platform and space_id (100% coverage). The description only reiterates the space_id override concept without adding new semantic detail, so it does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding 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?

The description clearly states it lists every ad and keyword that is not being served (disapproved, limited, or area-of-interest-only), including review status and reasons. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_ads and list_keywords by focusing specifically on disapproval state.

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?

The description explicitly positions this as the cheapest way to answer 'why isn't this ad running?' and provides clear scoping instructions (active Space, set_active_space, space_id override). It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_ads or list_keywords, but the phrasing 'without paging through every ad and keyword' implies them.

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

All Growomat tools Inspect

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

Need Help?