Growomat

Update keyword

update_keyword

Partial update of a keyword (e.g. matchType, status). Returns the full updated/created object. 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
`body`	Yes	Request body matching the KeywordUpdate schema. Fields below; see the OpenAPI spec for nested object shapes.
`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.
`keyword_id`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds valuable context: partial update semantics (omitted fields retained), return behavior (full updated/created object), and space scoping. It could mention prerequisites or error conditions, but the provided info is sufficient.

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 action, followed by a concise scoping note. No redundant words or repetition of schema details.

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 no output schema, the description includes the return type (full object). It covers the active Space context, which is critical for multi-space usage. Missing details about error handling or whether the keyword must exist are minor gaps; overall it is complete enough for a partial update tool.

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 already covers most parameters (67% coverage). The description adds meaning by specifying partial update scope and explicitly mentioning matchType/status as examples. It also clarifies space_id's role as an override, which supplements the schema description.

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 performs a partial update of a keyword, with specific examples (matchType, status). It distinguishes itself from create/delete/list siblings by specifying 'partial update' and returning the full updated/created object.

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?

It explains the scoping behavior (active Space, override with space_id) and instructs to use set_active_space to switch. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over create_keyword or delete_keyword, though 'partial update' implies modifying existing keywords.

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?