Growomat

Preview sync plan

preview_sync_plan

Read-only

Dry run: compute what a sync would import / export / remove for the active Space, without executing. Use before trigger_sync to see the blast radius. Honours the same campaign_ids hard scope and force as trigger_sync, and returns a planHash you can pass to trigger_sync (plan_hash) to execute exactly this plan or fail on drift. 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
`force`	No	Preview re-export of in-scope campaigns even when unchanged.
`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.
`platforms`	No	Platform ids to preview. Omit for all connected.
`campaign_ids`	No	Hard scope: preview ONLY these campaigns (matches a scoped trigger_sync).

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals it returns a planHash that can be passed to trigger_sync to 'execute exactly this plan or fail on drift.' It also discloses that it honors the same campaign_ids hard scope and force as trigger_sync, adding behavioral context that is not 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, with the first sentence being a crisp definition. Each subsequent sentence adds unique value—one addresses usage/return behavior and another scoping—with no redundancy or filler.

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 4-parameter, no-output-schema dry-run tool, the description fully covers purpose, usage, behavioral contract, and scoping. It even explains how the planHash integrates with trigger_sync, making it complete for correct invocation and interpretation of the result.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds cross-references like 'Honours the same campaign_ids hard scope and force as trigger_sync' and explains the space_id override behavior, providing extra meaning beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 'Dry run' and the specific verb 'compute what a sync would import / export / remove for the active Space, without executing.' This clearly distinguishes it from trigger_sync (which executes) and other sync-related tools, establishing a precise and unambiguous purpose.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use before trigger_sync to see the blast radius.' It also explains scoping alternatives—'Scoped to the active Space — see set_active_space to switch, or pass space_id to override for this one call'—so an agent knows exactly when and how to invoke this tool.

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?